(Choose 1 answer)
Case: Kastenholz, vs Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), Qwatchme A/S T-68/11 (06 June 2013)
What are the findings that the OHIM's third Board of Appeal dismissed the Kastenholz's app declaration of invalidity appeal?
A. The contested design was different from the earlier designs
B. The contested design possessed individual character
C. The contested design could not be regarded as being a reproduction or an adaptation of of art.
D. All of the above
Exit 28
