DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001688847-0003

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-08-31

R0758/2018-3

Contested design: 001688847-0003

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal inadmissible

The appeal is dismissed as inadmissible for failure to file a written statement of grounds within the four-month time limit; the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear all costs.

Show verbatim operative text

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

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Pacovis AGvia PDF extraction

Switzerland (CH)

Grabenmattenstrasse 19, 5608 Stetten, Switzerland

Represented by

ARNOLD & SIEDSMA

Holder · RCD owner

Natural Tableware BVvia PDF extraction

Netherlands (NL)

Gedempt Hamerkanaal 179, 1021 KP Amsterdam, Netherlands

Represented by

BRINKHOF

Legal grounds invoked

Article 57Article 56(4)Article 70(1)

Argument summary

  • Invalidity applicant (Pacovis AG) filed an appeal on 23 April 2018 against the Invalidity Division's rejection of its invalidity application against RCD No 1688847-0003 (dishes).
  • No statement of grounds of appeal was filed despite a four-month deadline from notification of the contested decision (22 February 2018), expiring 22 June 2018; the Office warned the applicant on 2 July 2018.
  • Invalidity applicant did not reply to the Office's warning.
  • The Board held the appeal inadmissible under Article 57 CDR for failure to submit written grounds; costs awarded to the design holder.

Deciding panel

  • ChairTh. M. Margellos
  • RapporteurC. Negro
  • MemberA. Szanyi Felkl
  • RegistrarI. Romero Conrad

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0756/2018-32018-08-31Appeal inadmissibleArt 58(1), Art 56(4)7