Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-01-31
R1913/2016-3
Contested design: 002696773-0002
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the design holder is ordered to bear costs fixed at EUR 1 250.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the fees and costs incurred by the invalidity applicant. 3. Fixes the amount of fees and costs to be paid by the design holder to the invalidity applicant with respect to the invalidity proceedings and appeal proceedings at EUR 1 250.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €1,250
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
CREVALDING, S.Lvia PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
C/ Robells, nº 3 – Polígono Industrial Mediterráneo, 46550 Albuixech (Valencia), Spain
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Oase Outdoors ApSvia PDF extraction
Denmark (DK)
Kornvej 9, 7323 Give, Denmark
Represented by
Prior art cited (3)
Headrests for garden chairs
Community design No 2 308 668-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2013-10-04
CRESPO AL-215 Compact armchair headrest in catalogue 'CRESPO, Collectie 2014'
CRESPO catalogue 2014 · disclosed 2014-01-01
Invoice for Al/215-C Armchair Compact to Indual Mobiliario S.L.
Invoice from Van Assendelft B.V., Netherlands · disclosed 2014-02-05
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder (appellant) argued the Invalidity Division correctly assessed novelty but wrongly concluded that the RCD lacked individual character; it contended the headrests differ materially in their trapezoidal vs. rectangular front profile, side curvature, thickness, and the solid clamps/bars, all of which the informed user would notice.
- ›The invalidity applicant (respondent) maintained that both headrests share a curved shell-like semicircular form with two supporting bars, producing the same overall impression; any differences in contour are clearly insignificant.
- ›The Board found the designer's freedom for headrests is wide, and that both designs share virtually the same shell-like semicircular shape supported by two bars; differences in the slight trapezoidal taper and minor curvature variation are difficult to notice and do not produce different overall impressions.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the contested RCD lacks individual character over prior Community design No 2 308 668-0001 and the holder must bear costs of EUR 1 250.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberC. Rusconi
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0122/2016-3 | 2018-07-09 | Decision Confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0181/2025-3 | 2025-05-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 4 |
| R0827/2024-3 | 2025-03-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 4 |
| R1336/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 4 |
| R0797/2024-3 | 2025-01-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 4 |
| R1125/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 4 |
| R1123/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 4 |
| R1124/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 4 |