Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-05-18

R1865/2017-3

Contested design: 002235689-0002

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

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

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

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

Spain (ES)

C/ Profesor Beltrán 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 Jiménez, 1, 21730 Almonte (Huelva), España

Represented by

Utility modelD1

box for storing and transporting fruits and vegetables

Modelo español de utilidad nº 201 200 729 · Boletín de propiedad industrial (Spain) · disclosed 2012-09-21

PatentD2

box for storing and transporting fruits and vegetables

Patente española nº ES 2 285 957 · Spain · disclosed 2007-11-16

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6Article 7Article 8Article 63

›The design holder (DOÑANA 1998) appealed the Invalidity Division's decision declaring RCD 2 235 689-0002 (fruit/vegetable box) invalid for lack of individual character over D1 (Spanish utility model), arguing indefensión because the Division only assessed D1 and not all prior art, and that proportional differences were sufficient to establish individual character.
›The invalidity applicant (FEDEMCO) argued no due process violation occurred (only one relevant prior art needed) and that the slight proportional differences between the contested RCD and D1 were insufficient given the broad designer freedom.
›The Board found: (i) no indefensión — it is procedurally proper to rely on one prior art if decisive; (ii) the designer's freedom for this type of fruit box is limited because functional constraints dictate most features (rectangular shape, flat walls, triangular corner posts, stacking capability); and (iii) the only perceptible difference (slightly different length-to-width ratio) is insufficient to produce a different overall impression — confirmed over both D1 and D2.
›Appeal dismissed; design holder ordered to bear costs.

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 ↗