Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-01-04
R1750/2016-3
Contested design: 002022160-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the holder is ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
1. Desestimar el recurso; 2. Ordenar que la titular cargue con las costas del procedimiento de recurso.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
fetch comunicaciones S.L.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
C/ General Pardiñas, 60 - SC, 28001 Madrid, España
Holder · RCD owner
Grupo Gescasi, S.L.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
C/ Luis Álvarez Lencero, 3 - 3º - 1ª, 06011 Badajoz, España
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
cerradura de seguridad electrónica para puertas
Diseño surcoreano n° 30-0432706 (solicitud 30-2005-00-32445) · Boletín de la Propiedad Intelectual de la República de Corea / Korea Intellectual Property Rights Information Service · disclosed 2006-12-05
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Holder appealed the first-instance invalidation of its RCD for security locks, arguing: the Korean prior design (D1) was inadmissible as untranslated into Spanish; it could not reasonably have been known by EU specialists; and the RCD produces a different overall impression due to four distinguishing features including a lateral antenna.
- ›Invalidity applicant (fetch comunicaciones) responded that translation defects were harmless, that Korean industrial designs are known in EU trade circles for sector professionals, and that the overall impression of the RCD matches D1.
- ›The Board confirmed that D1 was disclosed and accessible to EU lock-sector specialists regardless of language barriers; the partial translation was adequate; the exception under Article 7(1) CDR did not apply.
- ›The Board found the RCD's differences (antenna, small pivots, etc.) to be of limited visual impact, confirming the same overall impression; the appeal was dismissed and the holder ordered to pay costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberG. Humphreys
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0499/2023-3 | 2024-03-04 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R2422/2022-3 | 2024-01-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R0856/2022-3 | 2023-06-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R1562/2022-3 | 2023-05-31 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R1103/2022-3 | 2023-02-15 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R0676/2021-3 | 2022-11-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R0683/2021-3 | 2022-11-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R0679/2021-3 | 2022-11-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |