Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-10-16
R1867/2017-3
Contested design: 002235689-0006
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 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 Memoria de Actividades 2011, published May 2012
FEDEMCO Memoria de Actividades 2011 · disclosed 2012-05-01
photographs from FEDEMCO 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 manufacturer certifications
Manufacturer certifications
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The holder (appellant) argued violation of its right of defence and that proportional differences between the contested RCD (RCD No 2 235 689-0006, strawberry box) and prior art D1 were sufficient to establish individual character, given the high density of the design corpus.
- ›The invalidity applicant (respondent) maintained that designer freedom for fruit boxes is very broad and proportional differences insufficient for distinct overall impressions.
- ›The Board found designer freedom limited by functional requirements; it confirmed that the contested RCD and D1 produce the same overall impression, and additionally assessed D2 (Spanish patent ES 2 285 957), finding only a purely functional corner-bevel difference.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; invalidity upheld under Article 6 CDR over both 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 ↗ |