Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-02-12
R0459/2016-G
Contested design: 000218193-0010
Outcome
The contested decision is annulled, the invalidity application is rejected, and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision; 2. Rejects the application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 218 193-0010; 3. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the fees and costs incurred by the RCD holder.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
PROMECO NVvia PDF extraction
Belgium (BE)
Doornikserijksweg 12, 8510 Kortrijk, Belgium
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Aerts NVvia PDF extraction
Belgium (BE)
Herentalseweg 66, 2440 Geel, Belgium
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
Tableware set (including plates, cup, saucer, soup bowl) by GIMEX melamine plus GmbH
Community design No 63 664-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin No 1/2004 · disclosed 2004-01-13
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The RCD holder (appellant) argued the prior art consisted of a set of articles that should be compared as a whole, not split; isolating one plate from the set, the contested RCD is deeper (depth-to-width ratio 1:3 vs 1:5), has seamless edge-to-surface transitions (one visible plane vs five), and a curved outer rim — all differences producing a distinct overall impression.
- ›The invalidity applicant (respondent) argued the comparison must be limited to the features making up the contested design; both plates share a square form, four inclined slightly-curved borders, and a square rim; depth and edge-join differences are immaterial or not visible from the representations.
- ›The Grand Board, deciding a legally important question (comparison of a set vs single article), focused on the top plate in the prior design set and found multiple notable differences: greater depth and different depth-to-width ratio, seamless vs angular edge join, different glossiness, and more curved rim — all contributing to distinctly different overall impressions.
- ›The appeal was upheld; the prior design does not deprive the contested RCD of individual character (nor novelty), and the invalidity application is rejected.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberD. Schennen
- MemberG. Humphreys
- MemberS. Stürmann
- MemberC. Rusconi
- MemberM. Bra
- MemberA. Szanyi Felkl
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deGerman | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | human 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0331/2021-3 | 2021-08-23 | Decision annulled | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1546/2018-3 | 2019-01-22 | Decision annulled | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1434/2024-3 | 2024-12-11 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R2453/2023-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R0489/2022-3 | 2023-12-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R2289/2022-3 | 2023-12-13 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R0878/2022-3 | 2023-02-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R0643/2021-3 | 2022-05-24 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 6 |