Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-06-01
R1577/2016-3
Contested design: 002461889-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the design holder is ordered to bear the invalidity applicant's costs in both proceedings, fixed at EUR 1 250.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Inhaberin trägt die der Antragstellerin entstandenen Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerdeverfahrens. 3. Der Betrag der von der Inhaberin an die Antragstellerin zu erstattenden Kosten für das Nichtigkeits- und das Beschwerdeverfahren wird auf 1 250 EUR festgesetzt.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €1,250
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Creative Products Limitedvia PDF extraction
United Kingdom (GB)
Unit 7 Creative House Alma Park Road, Grantham NG31 9SE, Vereinigtes Königreich
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
GIMEX melamine plus GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Braunsberger Feld 13, 51429 Bergisch Gladbach, Deutschland
Prior art cited (5)
DrinKlip drink holder
www.geeky-gadgets.com article dated 24 June 2009 · www.geeky-gadgets.com · disclosed 2009-06-24
drink holder
http://women2.com article dated 15 December 2011 · women2.com · disclosed 2011-12-15
Drinklip drink holder
www.amazon.com ASIN B005TOSSFG; Wayback Machine 4 December 2011 · amazon.com · disclosed 2011-12-04
Drinklip drink holder
www.homedit.com article dated 16 July 2012 · www.homedit.com · disclosed 2012-07-16
drink holder
www.that-is-good.crap.com article dated 4 May 2014 · www.that-is-good.crap.com · disclosed 2014-05-04
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder (GIMEX) appealed the declaration of invalidity of its drink-holder clip RCD 2 461 889-0001, arguing the prior art web disclosures were not reliably dated before the filing date (12 May 2014) and that distinctive design features (perimeter rims, full-width coil spring, circular end discs on both ends of the pin) distinguished the RCD from all prior designs.
- ›The invalidity applicant (Creative Products) maintained the web disclosures were properly dated and confirmed by Wayback Machine archives, and that the allegedly distinctive features were either present in or inherent to the prior designs.
- ›The Board found the web disclosures reliably proven (Wayback Machine confirmations; Amazon ASIN matching); on individual character, the designs share the same overall impression — same shape (rectangular/rounded end combination), same proportions, same pin-and-coil-spring construction — and the differences in surface treatment (rim vs. round indentations) are insufficient to affect the overall impression.
- ›Appeal dismissed; design holder ordered to pay EUR 1 250 in fixed costs (EUR 350 invalidity fee + EUR 400 invalidity representation + EUR 500 appeal representation).
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1)(b), Art 28(1)(b), Art 7(1) | — | 7 |
| R2422/2022-3 | 2024-01-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0837/2020-3 | 2023-08-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 6(1)(b), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0856/2022-3 | 2023-06-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0055/2022-3 | 2022-10-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0303/2021-3 | 2022-07-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2443/2020-3 | 2023-01-17 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R1434/2020-3 | 2021-06-25 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 6 |