General Court: no precise representation of design means no protection

In Mast-Jägermeister SE v EUIPO, the General Court has confirmed that the applicant’s representation was not suitable for reproduction for the purposes of Article 36(1) of Regulation 6/2002 and that its application could not be dealt with as an application for a registered design. The court rejected the applicant’s key argument that it was only where the design is physically muddled or vague that the examiner could find a lack of compliance with Article 36(1).