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

R1060/2017-3

Contested design: 002371591-0003

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, various colour variants)

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

PatentPrior design 2

Functional pillow (US patent application)

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 (RCD 2 371 591-0003, a single-chamber support cushion with U-shaped stitching dividing it into three parts) lacked novelty and individual character over prior design 1 ('Fitvankúš' blue variant); it maintained the stitching was purely technical (creating a non-inflatable central section for haemorrhoid relief) and the colour scheme was identical.
›The design holder (respondent) argued the U-shaped stitching is clearly visible and creates a distinct three-part profile; the material (matte/velvety top, leather-effect black bottom) and reduced central thickness are distinctive design choices freely made by the designer.
›The Board found the contested design's distinctive profile — thinner centre with slightly higher sides, maintained by the U-stitching — and the different material combination together create a different overall impression on the informed user; designer freedom is not substantially limited and the profile is not solely dictated by technical function.
›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 ↗