Restitutio in integrum · 2018-04-27
R1837/2017-3
Contested design: 002315895-0001
Outcome
The examiner's decision of 19 June 2017 is declared null and void; the appeal filed on 21 August 2017 is dismissed as inadmissible; the request for restitutio in integrum is rejected; and the appeal filed on 5 June 2017 is deemed not to have been filed.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Declares the decision of the examiner of 19 June 2017 on the application for restitutio in integrum of 5 June 2017 under Article 67 of Community Design Regulation null and void; 2. Dismisses the appeal filed on 21 August 2017 (R 1837/2017-3) as inadmissible; 3. Rejects the request for restitutio in integrum of 5 June 2017; 4. Declares the appeal filed on 5 June 2017 deemed not filed.
CostsNo costs order
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Jaguar Land Rover Limitedvia PDF extraction
United Kingdom (GB)
Patents Department W/1/6 Abbey Road, Whitley, Coventry, Warwickshire CV3 4LF, United Kingdom
Holder · RCD owner
No opposing holder — Restitutio in integrum.
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Appellant (Jaguar Land Rover) sought restitutio in integrum to reinstate the right to appeal after its RCD 002315895-0001 lapsed due to inadvertent filing of the wrong publication request by fax in May 2015, with the error only discovered on 26 May 2017.
- ›No opposing private party; this is an ex-parte proceeding before the Board regarding a lapsed design registration.
- ›The Board found: (i) the examiner lacked competence to decide the restitutio request (competence lay exclusively with the Board), so that decision is null and void; (ii) the restitutio request is admissible; but (iii) on the merits, the appellant failed to demonstrate all due care because even an informal letter in April 2016 should have alerted it to the need to appeal or file restitutio in integrum within the prescribed time-limits.
- ›The restitutio in integrum request is rejected; the appeal of 21 August 2017 is inadmissible (no valid decision to appeal); the appeal of 5 June 2017 is deemed not filed as the appeal fee was not paid in time.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Bartos
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarI. Romero Conrad
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0630/2023-3 | 2023-12-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 67(2), Art 67(1) | — | 4 |
| R0630/2023-3 | 2023-12-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 67(2), Art 67(1) | — | 4 |
| R0630/2023-3 | 2023-12-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 67(2), Art 67(1) | — | 4 |
| R0630/2023-3 | 2023-12-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 67(2), Art 67(1) | — | 4 |
| R0630/2023-3 | 2023-12-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 67(2), Art 67(1) | — | 4 |
| R0630/2023-3 | 2023-12-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 67(2), Art 67(1) | — | 4 |
| R0630/2023-3 | 2023-12-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 67(2), Art 67(1) | — | 4 |
| R0630/2023-3 | 2023-12-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 67(2), Art 67(1) | — | 4 |