Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-10-16
R1866/2017-3
Contested design: 002235689-0004
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the design holder is ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings incurred by the invalidity applicant.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
1. Desestimar el recurso. 2. Ordenar que la titular cargue con los gastos del procedimiento de recurso incurridos por la solicitante de nulidad.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
FEDERACIÓN ESPAÑOLA DEL ENVASE DE MADERA Y SUS COMPONENTES (FEDEMCO)via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
C/ Profesor Beltrán Baguena, 4, Despacho 412-C, 46009 Valencia, España
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
DOÑANA 1998, S.L.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
C/ Juan Ramón Jiménez, 1, 21730 Almonte (Huelva), España
Represented by
Prior art cited (9)
wooden fruit/vegetable box; figure 5 relied on
Modelo español de utilidad nº 201 200 729 · Boletín de propiedad industrial español · disclosed 2012-09-21
box for storing and transporting fruit and vegetables; figure 4 relied on
Patente española nº ES 2 285 957 · Boletín español de patentes · disclosed 2007-11-16
photograph from magazine AgroEnvase, July 2012
AgroEnvase · disclosed 2012-07-01
photograph from magazine AgroEnvase, January 2012
AgroEnvase · disclosed 2012-01-01
photograph from FEDEMCO's Memoria de Actividades 2011, published May 2012
FEDEMCO Memoria de Actividades 2011 · disclosed 2012-05-01
photographs from FEDEMCO's catalogue
FEDEMCO catalogue
photograph from magazine Infopack, January 2012
Infopack · disclosed 2012-01-01
photograph from magazine Fruchthandel, 21 December 2012
Fruchthandel · disclosed 2012-12-21
photographs accompanying copies of certificates from box manufacturers
Manufacturer certifications
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The holder (appellant) argued the Invalidity Division violated its right of defence by relying solely on D1, and that the differences in box proportions between the contested RCD and D1 were sufficient to create a distinct overall impression, especially given the high number of existing designs in the sector.
- ›The invalidity applicant (respondent) replied that the Division was not obliged to examine all prior art once one was sufficient, and that the designer's freedom for fruit boxes is very broad, so small proportional differences cannot generate different overall impressions.
- ›The Board found the designer's freedom limited (rectangular shape and corner reinforcements functionally dictated); it confirmed that both D1 and D2 produce the same overall impression as the contested RCD, with only minor proportional and functional differences; it also examined D2 (Spanish patent ES 2 285 957) on its own motion, finding the corner bevel difference purely functional.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the Board upheld the invalidity declaration under Article 6 CDR over prior designs D1 and D2.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberH. Salmi
- RegistrarI. Romero Conrad
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine 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 ↗ |