Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-06-27

R1059/2017-3

Contested design: 002371591-0002

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the fees and costs incurred in the appeal proceedings by the design holder.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Dvectis CZ s.r.o.via PDF extraction

Czechia (CZ)

Příkop 843/4, 60200 Brno, Czech Republic

Represented by

Holder · RCD owner

YADO s.r.o.via PDF extraction

Pstruhárska 785/5, 972 51 Handlová, Slovakia

Represented by

Web disclosurePrior design 1

Product 'Fitvankúš' — anatomical support pillow/cushion (single chamber)

http://abcinterier.sk (printout dated 10 April 2012) · Slovakia — website abcinterier.sk · disclosed 2012-04-10

PatentPrior design 2

Functional pillow (US patent application by Eui Suk Kim and Nam Young Son)

US 2013/0318722 A1 · United States Patent Office · disclosed 2013-12-05

PatentPrior design 3

Pillow (US design patent)

US D615 794 S · United States Patent Office · disclosed 2010-05-18

Registered RCDPrior design 4

Advertising articles, mattresses and cushions, advertising stands

RCD No 1 852 617-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-05-10

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6Article 6(1)Article 6(2)Article 7Article 7(1)Article 7(2)Article 7(3)Article 70(1)

›The invalidity applicant (appellant) argued the contested design (dual-chamber support pillow RCD 2 371 591-0002) lacked novelty and individual character versus prior design 1 ('Fitvankúš'); it contended the second chamber was dictated by technical function, the top view was nearly identical, and the informed user would not notice the difference.
›The design holder (respondent) argued the two-chamber configuration, blue connecting strip, and distinct colour scheme clearly set the contested design apart; the second chamber is an aesthetic rather than purely functional element and the informed user would manipulate and lift the cushion.
›The Board found the contested design's double-layer/two-chamber construction and the resulting greater 'puffiness', combined with a distinctive colour scheme for the connecting strip, produced a clearly different overall impression on the informed user; designer freedom is not substantially limited and the added chamber is not solely technically dictated.
›The appeal is dismissed; the contested design has individual character and novelty; the 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 ↗