Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-07-17
R1074/2017-3
Contested design: 003023712-0021
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the costs of the holder.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
1. Desestimar el recurso; 2. Ordenar que la solicitante de nulidad sufrague las costas de la titular.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
FABULOUS CIPHER, LDA.via PDF extraction
Portugal (PT)
Rua da Mabor, 104, Braga-Vilanova de Famalicão-Lousado, 4760 813 Lousado, Portugal
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
PARFOIS - BARATA & RAMILO, S.A.via PDF extraction
Portugal (PT)
Rua do Sistelo, 755 - Lugar de Santegãos, 4435-429 Rio Tinto, Portugal
Represented by
Prior art cited (10)
Sales display stand — published on etsy.com in 2013
www.etsy.com (2013) · www.etsy.com
Sales display stand — published on etsy.com in 2013
www.etsy.com (2013) · www.etsy.com
Sales display stand — published on etsy.com in 2013
www.etsy.com (2013) · www.etsy.com
Sales display stand (registered Polish design, 6 June 2008)
PL 14 193 · Patent Office of the Republic of Poland · disclosed 2008-06-06
Sales display stand (registered Chinese design, 20 June 2012)
CN 2012 30 264 061.0 · China national design registry · disclosed 2012-06-20
Sales display stand (registered Community design, 17 December 2003)
EM 122 601-0015 · EUIPO Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2003-12-17
Sales display stand (registered Community design, 4 October 2012)
EM 2113209-0006 · EUIPO Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2012-10-04
Artwork disclosed in 1953 (cited in expert report for base-and-rod concept only)
Expert report · disclosed 1953-01-01
Artwork disclosed in 1960s (cited in expert report for base-and-rod concept)
Expert report
Series of six ethnological museum hanging stands disclosed in 2011 (cited in expert report)
Expert report — museum objects · disclosed 2011-01-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant (appellant) challenged the first-instance rejection of its invalidity application against a sales display stand RCD, arguing the Etsy models should have been admitted (date verified via Wayback Machine), further models from the expert report should have been considered, and the MCR produces a déjà-vu impression over the prior art due to the shared wooden-base-plus-vertical-rod-plus-arms structure.
- ›The design holder (respondent) argued that new prior designs introduced for the first time in the appeal are inadmissible, that the designer's freedom is limited only by the need for stability and hanging capability, and that design differences in base shape, arm configuration and proportions create a different overall impression.
- ›The Board found new prior designs first introduced in the appeal inadmissible; rejected the Etsy models for lack of adequate date proof; confirmed wide designer freedom; and found each of the admitted prior designs differs sufficiently from the MCR in base shape, arm number/placement/curvature, and proportions to produce a different overall impression on the informed user.
- ›The appeal is dismissed; the MCR has individual character over all admitted prior designs; the invalidity applicant bears costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberG. Humphreys
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |