Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-06-26
R0184/2017-3
Contested design: 002747527-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the design holder is ordered to bear the fees and costs incurred by the invalidity applicant.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the fees and costs incurred by the invalidity applicant.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
"Т & D Control systems"via PDF extraction
Bulgaria (BG)
Primorski Region, residential complex Izgrev № 865, 9000 Varna, Bulgaria
Represented by
Plamen Priparzhenski
Holder · RCD owner
"SIGMATRON"EOODvia PDF extraction
Bulgaria (BG)
"Edison" str. N35, 1111 Sofia, Bulgaria
Represented by
Atanas Kostov
Prior art cited (1)
Signalling device LSB6 (6-channel cartridge for technological signalling), as shown in photographs provided by CEZ Bulgaria EAD; sold to invalidity applicant in 2010 and to CEZ Bulgaria EAD reportedly in 2008/2009
Bulgaria — CEZ Bulgaria EAD (photographs and cease-and-desist correspondence) · disclosed 2008-01-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder (appellant) argued the Invalidity Division wrongly denied it restitutio in integrum, depriving it of the right of defence, and that the wrong prior design version (LSB6 RGB rather than LSB6 RGB RS) was compared; it submitted that the front and rear panels differ significantly between old and new models.
- ›The invalidity applicant (respondent) argued the appeal statement lacked a matching name/address, the restitutio decision was correct, and that the contested decision properly assessed individual character using the front panel as the relevant view.
- ›The Board confirmed admissibility, found no need to rule on restitutio (the holder had a full opportunity before the Board), and endorsed the Invalidity Division's comparison based on the prior design provided by the invalidity applicant. The front panel is the only visible part in use; the designs are substantially the same in that critical part, so the contested RCD lacks individual character under Article 6(1)(b) CDR.
- ›The appeal is dismissed; the RCD lacks individual character; the holder bears costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- 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 ↗ |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2471/2023-3 | 2024-08-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2422/2022-3 | 2024-01-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2206/2021-3 | 2022-12-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0133/2022-3 | 2022-12-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0055/2022-3 | 2022-10-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2054/2021-3 | 2022-08-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2028/2021-3 | 2022-07-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0303/2021-3 | 2022-07-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |