Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-06-01
R1594/2017-3
Contested design: 002025676-0004
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the RCD holder's costs in the appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the RCD holder's costs in the appeal proceedings.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
CERAMICAS APARICI, S.A.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Ctra. Castellón-Alcora, Km. 12, 12110 Alcora (Castellón), Spain
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Koninklijke Mosa B.V.via PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
Meerssenerweg 358, 6224 AL Maastricht, Netherlands
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
Tile design 'Quarz' (Todagres, SA catalogue 2009, pp. 110-120)
Todagres, SA catalogue 2009 · disclosed 2009-01-01
Tile design 'Due' (exhibited by Solarium Revestimentos at Expo Revestir 2011, Brazil)
Expo Revestir 2011, Brazil · disclosed 2011-01-01
Tile design 'Town' (Catalogo General Urbatek 2012 Edicion Enero, Porcelanosa SA, pp. 20-21)
Porcelanosa SA catalogue · disclosed 2012-01-01
Tile design 'Microcement' (Apavisa Porcelanico General Catalogue 09/10 published 2010)
Apavisa Porcelanico General Catalogue 09/10 · disclosed 2010-01-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant (Ceramicas Aparici) appealed the second Invalidity Division decision (after a prior remittal) which had found RCD 2 025 676-0004 (set of 425 tiles with diagonal two-tone division pattern) novel and having individual character over three prior tile designs ('Quarz', 'Town', 'Microcement'); applicant argued designer freedom is virtually unlimited and differences between the RCD and the prior designs are outweighed by the shared mosaic impression.
- ›The RCD holder (Koninklijke Mosa) argued that the composition of tiles as registered must be compared as a whole, and the differences in two-tone colour vs. monochrome, smooth vs. textured surface, and the division patterns are visually decisive.
- ›The Board confined its review to individual character with respect to 'Quarz', 'Town' and 'Microcement' (the 'Due' design dismissal was final): for 'Quarz' the two-colour composition vs. monochrome, smooth vs. textured surface, and all-divided vs. partly-undivided tiles produce different overall impressions; for 'Town' the disclosure was insufficiently clear to enable a comparison; for 'Microcement' the sharp colour contrast (four shades vs. two) and single vs. multiple division patterns produce different overall impressions.
- ›Appeal dismissed; invalidity applicant bears costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberE. Fink
- 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 ↗ |