Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-01-30

R0503/2017-3

Contested design: 002193052-0002

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed; the design holder is ordered to bear the appeal costs incurred by the invalidity applicant.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Desestimar el recurso. 2. Ordenar que la titular cargue con los gastos del procedimiento de recurso incurridos por la solicitante de nulidad.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Applicant · invalidity challenger

FEDERACION ESPAÑOLA DEL ENVASE DE MADERA Y SUS COMPONENTES (FEDEMCO)via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

C/ Profesor Beltran Baguena, 4, despacho 412-C, 46009 Valencia, España

Represented by

Holder · RCD owner

DOÑANA 1998, S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

C/ Juan Ramón Jimenez, 1, 21730 Almonte (HUELVA), España

Represented by

Utility modelD1

Wooden packaging/envase de madera (figure 5)

ES 201 200 729 · Boletín de la Oficina Española de Patentes y Marcas · disclosed 2012-09-21

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6Article 7

›The design holder (appellant) argued the Invalidity Division did not properly identify the prior art reference and failed to examine all prior art; it also claimed the contested RCD had individual character because differences in proportions (length, width, height ratios) between the two designs would be noticed by the informed user, and that in a crowded sector even small differences suffice.
›The invalidity applicant (respondent) contended D1 was correctly identified, the Division was not required to examine all prior art once one sufficient reference was found, and that the designer's freedom for wooden fruit crates is very broad so the slight differences do not produce a different overall impression.
›The Board found the designer's freedom is actually limited because the rectangular shape, bottom, four walls, and triangular corner posts are all functionally determined; visually the two designs are practically identical with the only perceptible difference (a perimeter mark on D1's bottom) being a manufacturing-process indicator, not a design feature.
›The Board dismissed the appeal and confirmed the invalidity of the contested RCD for lack of individual character over D1.

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 ↗