Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-09-13
R2310/2017-3
Contested design: 002288027-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the design holder is ordered to bear the invalidity applicant's costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs incurred by the invalidity applicant.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Petris d.o.o.via PDF extraction
SI
Cesta na Laze 12, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Represented by
Marjan Pipan
Holder · RCD owner
Allegro d.o.o.via PDF extraction
SI
Cesta na Laze 10, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
Filigrantrae – minimal wooden artificial Christmas tree
http://www.shelterrific.com/2010/11/01/a-minimal-christmas-tree-the-filigrantrae · shelterrific.com · disclosed 2010-11-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Holder (appellant) argued the Invalidity Division overlooked differences between the designs: branch count, branch length distribution, distances, symmetry, angles, trunk cut, wooden base mass, and the star atop the contested RCD.
- ›No observations were received from the invalidity applicant (respondent) on appeal.
- ›The Board confirmed the disclosure finding (not contested) and found the designer's freedom for artificial Christmas trees is not substantially restricted, so only minor differences will not suffice for a different overall impression.
- ›Both designs share the same abstract wooden-stick Christmas tree aesthetic with a rounded vertical trunk, horizontal branches extending through the trunk becoming longer toward the bottom, and identical crossed wooden bases; differences in branch count, star, and minor proportions are insufficient to alter the overall impression.
- ›Appeal dismissed; holder bears costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberC. Negro
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0181/2025-3 | 2025-05-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0827/2024-3 | 2025-03-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1336/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0797/2024-3 | 2025-01-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1123/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1125/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1124/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1015/2024-3 | 2024-11-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |