As it turns out that a honeycomb structure design is not only known among bees but also in the field of building articles. Namely, in its recent judgment of October 15, 2015, in the case T‑251/14, General Court found that CRD (No. 1608365‑0001, application filled on 7 September 2009) presented below does not have an individual character.

The reason for  refusal to admit the individual character of the above CRD was the earlier publication of patent of US application titled „filling of a honeycomb structure “ granted on 27 January 1981, whose illustration is presented below.

Moreover, the Applicant presented several pieces of magazines on interior decoration and offers of the products to be sold in the European Union territory as well as European patent applications  featuring "honeycomb" door filed before the date of filing the contested design for registration.

The Court noted that the publication of the US patent descriptions might reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialized in the sector concerned, operating within the Community before date of application of contested design.

Furthermore, the Court confirmed the well-established case law accordingly to which: The qualifier ‘informed’ suggests in addition that, without being a designer or a technical expert, the user knows the various designs which exist in the sector concerned, possesses a certain degree of knowledge with regard to the features which those designs normally include, and, as a result of his interest in the products concerned, shows a relatively high degree of attention when he uses them.   However, that factor does not imply that the informed user is able to distinguish, beyond the experience gained by using the product concerned, the aspects of the appearance of the product which are dictated by the product’s technical function from those which are arbitrary.

The Court pointed out, conversely to the applicant’s claims, that the process of producing the design does not limit the freedom of the designer in developing the design.  This is because the description of the category of the product for which the contested design was registered is „door (a part thereof)”. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, since the description is put in very broad terms and does not consist of any further clarification as to the type of the relevant part of the door or its functions, the applicant does not have basis to argue with limitation of freedom of the designer.

Taking above into account, the Court found that the informed user of the door represented in the CRD at issue might be a professional as well as a consumer and the fact that the scope of freedom of the designer is broad with the only limitation that the subject product is to insulate the space and serve as a filling between door frame. Moreover, even if there are some differences between the shape included in contested design and the earlier design still, the overall impression produced on an informed user by both of them is the same, i.e. image of the doors with the insulation in the shape of a honeycomb structure.

Irrespective of the above, the author only speculates who produces the doors with visible insulation during a normal use.