Gerecht EU: Wayback Machine-screenshot kan bewijs leveren van openbaarmaking ouder model

Gerecht EU 29 april 2026, IEF 23510; IEFbe 4206; ECLI:EU:T:2026:302 (Doors Bulgaria EOOD tegen EUIPO en Top Ten EOOD). In zaak T-580/25 bevestigt het Gerecht de beslissing van de Derde kamer van beroep van het EUIPO in een nietigheidsprocedure over een ingeschreven Uniemodel voor deuren. Het betwiste model was aangevraagd op 16 december 2013 en ingeschreven voor waren in klasse 25.02 van de Locarno-classificatie. Top Ten EOOD had in 2023 om nietigverklaring verzocht op grond van artikel 25 lid 1 onder b Verordening 6/2002, gelezen in samenhang met de vereisten van nieuwheid en eigen karakter uit de artikelen 4, 5 en 6 van die verordening, in de versie vóór Verordening 2024/2822. Ter onderbouwing beriep Top Ten zich onder meer op een afbeelding van een oudere deur op een website, vastgelegd via de Wayback Machine op 23 augustus 2013, dus vóór de aanvraagdatum van het betwiste model. De Nietigheidsafdeling verklaarde het model nietig wegens gebrek aan eigen karakter. De Kamer van Beroep bevestigde die beslissing en oordeelde dat de Wayback Machine-screenshot en de volledige uitdraai van de website voldoende bewijs vormden dat het oudere model vóór de relevante datum aan het publiek beschikbaar was gesteld in de zin van artikel 7 lid 1 Verordening 6/2002. Ten overvloede bevestigde de Kamer van Beroep ook dat de betrokken modellen bij de geïnformeerde gebruiker dezelfde algemene indruk wekten, zodat het betwiste model geen eigen karakter had.

Het Gerecht verwerpt het beroep van Doors Bulgaria. Volgens het Gerecht schrijft de Modellenverordening niet voor in welke vorm bewijs van openbaarmaking moet worden geleverd. De verzoeker tot nietigverklaring mag dus zelf kiezen welk bewijs hij overlegt, en EUIPO moet dat bewijs vrij waarderen, zolang het voldoende concreet, objectief en betrouwbaar is. Publicatie van een model op internet kan een openbaarmaking vormen, en een Wayback Machine-screenshot kan relevante informatie opleveren ter onderbouwing van de betrouwbaarheid van een website-uitdraai. De enkele abstracte mogelijkheid dat een webpagina of datum technisch kan worden gemanipuleerd, is onvoldoende om de bewijswaarde aan te tasten. Daarvoor zijn concrete aanwijzingen nodig, zoals duidelijke vervalsingssporen, tegenstrijdigheden of evidente inconsistenties. Zulke aanwijzingen had Doors Bulgaria niet aangevoerd. Ook het ontbreken van notariële vastlegging of certificering maakt het bewijs niet ontoelaatbaar, omdat geen wettelijke authenticatie-eis geldt. EUIPO hoefde evenmin zelf nader onderzoek te doen naar de gearchiveerde webpagina of aanvullend bewijs te verzamelen, nu de overgelegde stukken de afbeelding van het oudere model, de volledige URL en de archiveringsdatum bevatten. Nadat openbaarmaking is aangetoond, is het aan de houder van het betwiste model om aannemelijk te maken dat die openbaarmaking in de normale gang van zaken niet redelijkerwijs bekend kon zijn geworden bij de gespecialiseerde kringen in de betrokken sector die binnen de Unie werkzaam zijn. Ook dat had Doors Bulgaria niet gedaan. Het beroep wordt volledig verworpen. Doors Bulgaria draagt haar eigen kosten en de kosten van Top Ten; EUIPO draagt zijn eigen kosten omdat geen mondelinge behandeling heeft plaatsgevonden.

30      In the first place, it should be noted that the two items of evidence, examined both by the Invalidity Division and by the Board of Appeal, are a complete printout of the website ‘sdelalremont.ru’ containing the image of the earlier design and a screenshot from the Wayback Machine which archived that site on 23 August 2013. It must be stated that those items of evidence contain the representation of the earlier design, the full URL address and the date of archiving of the website, namely 23 August 2013.

31      It is apparent from the case-law, first, that the appearance of the image of a design on the internet constitutes an event which may be classified as a ‘publication’ and which is therefore tantamount to ‘[disclosure] to the public’ within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 June 2023, Rauch Furnace Technology v EUIPO – Musto and Bureau (Creuset), T‑347/22, not published, EU:T:2023:344, paragraph 62 and the case-law cited) and, second, that the screenshot taken from the Wayback Machine may constitute a source of relevant information corroborating the reliability of the screenshot of a website (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 October 2021, JMS Sports v EUIPO – Inter-Vion (Spiral hair elastic), T‑823/19, EU:T:2021:718, paragraph 58).

32      In that regard, as is apparent from the case-law cited in paragraph 25 above, the prevailing principle in EU law is the principle of the unfettered evaluation of evidence, from which it follows, in particular, that the only relevant criterion for the purpose of assessing the probative value of evidence lawfully adduced relates to its credibility. Thus, in order to assess the probative value of a document, it is necessary to take account, in particular, of the person from whom the document originates, the circumstances in which it came into being, the person to whom it was addressed and whether, on the face of it, the document appears sound and reliable (see judgment of 18 May 2022, Domator24.com Paweł Nowak v EUIPO – Siwek and Didyk (Armchair), T‑256/21, not published, EU:T:2022:297, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).

33      As regards, in the second place, the allegations of manipulation of evidence, it must be noted that the Court has already held that the mere abstract possibility that the content or date of a website may be manipulated is not a sufficient ground to undermine the credibility of the evidence consisting of the screenshot of that website. That credibility can be undermined only by invoking facts that concretely suggest a manipulation. Such facts may include clear signs of falsification, manifest contradictions in the information shown or obvious inconsistencies that may reasonably justify doubts as to the genuineness of the screenshots of the websites at issue in question (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 October 2021, Spiral hair elastic, T‑823/19, EU:T:2021:718, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited). It must be stated that the applicant’s claims are abstract and, as the Board of Appeal pointed out in paragraph 43 of the contested decision, the applicant has not adduced specific evidence to show that the intervener fabricated or modified such a webpage, or even how it would have been technically or practically possible for it to make such fabrication or modification.

34      In the third place, as regards the applicant’s argument based on the conditions of use of the Wayback Machine to call into question the credibility of the disclosure of the earlier design, it should be noted, as observed by EUIPO, that the applicant has not identified any specific term or explained how those terms would undermine the authenticity of the archived screenshot in question. Similarly, it must be recalled that, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 31 above, the Wayback Machine is a source of relevant information that may corroborate the reliability of the screenshot of a website.

35      As regards, in the fourth place, the claim that the evidence adduced by the intervener is not certified, it should be recalled, as is apparent from the case-law cited in paragraph 23 above, that neither Regulation No 6/2002 nor Regulation No 2245/2002 specifies the mandatory form of the evidence that must be adduced by the invalidity applicant to show that the earlier design was disclosed before the date of filing of the application for registration of the design for which protection is claimed (judgment of 9 March 2012, Phial, T‑450/08, not published, EU:T:2012:117, paragraph 22). A fortiori, those regulations do not impose a requirement to authenticate evidence of disclosure of an earlier design, as the Board of Appeal correctly found in paragraph 43 of the contested decision. Accordingly, the failure to certify the authenticity of the evidence adduced cannot result in the Court’s obligation to reject it (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 April 2018, Euro Castor Green v EUIPO – Netlon France (Concealed trellis), T‑756/16, not published, EU:T:2018:224, paragraph 48).

36      In the fifth place, the applicant’s claims that, first, EUIPO should have verified the existence of the archived web page and, second, that it should have gathered additional evidence to confirm the content of that web page, must be rejected as unfounded. As is apparent from paragraph 30 above, the screenshot produced by the intervener contains all the information necessary to conclude that the earlier design was indeed disclosed before the application for the contested design was filed and the applicant has not established that that evidence was unreliable or factually inaccurate.

37      Lastly, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 21 above, once disclosure has been demonstrated, it is presumed to exist. It is therefore for the party challenging it to prove that the circumstances of the case could reasonably prevent the events constituting the disclosure in question from becoming known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned (see judgment of 10 November 2021, Sanford v EUIPO – Avery Zweckform (Labels), T‑443/20, EU:T:2021:767, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited). In the present case, the applicant has not adduced any evidence to that effect, as the Board of Appeal found, in essence, in paragraph 44 of the contested decision. During the administrative procedure, the applicant merely claimed that screenshot from the Wayback Machine was not capable of demonstrating disclosure of the earlier design by putting forward, in essence, the same arguments as before the Court.