Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-06-01

R1595/2017-3

Contested design: 002025676-0005

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

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

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

Catalog

Tile design 'Quarz' (Todagres, SA catalogue 2009, pp. 110-120)

Todagres, SA catalogue 2009 · disclosed 2009-01-01

Prior use

Tile design 'Due' (exhibited by Solarium Revestimentos at Expo Revestir 2011, Brazil)

Expo Revestir 2011, Brazil · disclosed 2011-01-01

Catalog

Tile design 'Town' (Catalogo General Urbatek 2012 Edicion Enero, Porcelanosa SA, pp. 20-21)

Porcelanosa SA catalogue · disclosed 2012-01-01

Catalog

Tile design 'Microcement' (Apavisa Porcelanico General Catalogue 09/10 published 2010)

Apavisa Porcelanico General Catalogue 09/10 · disclosed 2010-01-01

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5Article 6Article 7

›The invalidity applicant (Ceramicas Aparici) appealed the second Invalidity Division decision which had found RCD 2 025 676-0005 (set of 96 tiles, 30 cm x 30 cm, with diagonal two-tone division pattern) novel and having individual character over three prior tile designs ('Quarz', 'Town', 'Microcement'); applicant argued that designer freedom is virtually unlimited and the common mosaic impression outweighs differences.
›The RCD holder (Koninklijke Mosa) argued the differences in colour combination, surface finish, division pattern and number of variants produce clearly different overall impressions and the RCD's validity should be confirmed.
›Applying the same reasoning as in the parallel case R 1594/2017-3 (concerning RCD 2 025 676-0004 / 15 cm x 15 cm tiles), the Board found: 'Quarz' differs in two-colour vs. monochrome, smooth vs. textured surface, all-divided vs. partly-undivided tiles; 'Town' disclosure lacks sufficient clarity to allow comparison; 'Microcement' differs in colour contrast (four vs. two shades) and single vs. multiple division patterns — none destroys individual character.
›Appeal dismissed; invalidity applicant bears costs.

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 ↗