Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-07-19
R1197/2017-3
Contested design: 001333223-0001
Outcome
The appeal is upheld: the Invalidity Division's decision is annulled, the invalidity application is rejected, and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear all costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision; 2. Rejects the application for a declaration of invalidity; 3. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Aroma Essence Ltdvia PDF extraction
Bulgaria (BG)
'Vasil Levski' bl. 8, BG-6100 Kazanlak, Bulgaria
Represented by
Zdravka Dimitrova Kostadinova-Vulcheva
Holder · RCD owner
REFAN BULGARIA OODvia PDF extraction
Bulgaria (BG)
Karlovsko shose, 52, Trud, Bulgaria
Prior art cited (2)
washing sponges
RCD No 1890492-0001 · EUIPO register · disclosed 2011-07-22
washing sponges
RCD No 1890492-0002 · EUIPO register · disclosed 2011-07-22
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Holder (appellant) argued that the prior RCDs 1890492-0001 and -0002 fell within the 12-month grace period of Article 7(2) CDR (filed 13/07/2011, within grace period running from 29/04/2011) and therefore could not destroy novelty or individual character of the contested RCD filed 29/04/2012.
- ›Invalidity applicant (respondent) argued that the prior designs had themselves been declared invalid for lack of novelty over earlier 2010 disclosures by the holder, making that 2010 date the relevant disclosure date outside the grace period; the designs were identical or highly similar.
- ›The Board held that only the registered RCDs 1890492-0001/-0002 were validly invoked prior designs; the 2010 disclosures were not properly introduced into these proceedings; the Board confirmed both prior RCDs fell within the Article 7(2) grace period and thus could not be used against the contested RCD.
- ›The Board further found that the invalidity of the prior designs in other proceedings is not a well-known fact to be taken into account ex officio, rejecting the Invalidity Division's contrary reasoning; without valid prior art, the invalidity application could not succeed.
- ›The contested decision was annulled and the invalidity application rejected; costs awarded to the holder.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberA. Szanyi Felkl
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0055/2022-3 | 2022-10-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(2), Art 60(1) | — | 6 |
| R2167/2023-3 | 2024-06-10 | Decision annulled | Art 60(1) | — | 5 |
| R1924/2019-3 | 2020-05-07 | Decision annulled | Art 60(1) | — | 5 |
| R1063/2023-3 | 2024-11-11 | Decision confirmed | Art 60(1) | — | 4 |
| R2427/2023-3 | 2024-07-31 | Decision partially annulled | Art 60(1) | — | 4 |
| R1562/2022-3 | 2023-05-31 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(2) | — | 4 |
| R1448/2022-3 | 2023-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 60(1) | — | 4 |
| R1446/2022-3 | 2023-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 60(1) | — | 4 |