Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-11-19
R1397/2017-3
Contested design: 002217588-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the costs incurred by the design holder.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
1. Desestimar el recurso. 2. Ordenar que la solicitante de la nulidad corra con los gastos incurridos por la titular.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
L. OLIVA TORRAS, S.A.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Camí de Rajadell, s/n, 08241 Manresa (Barcelona), España
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
MECÁNICA DEL FRIO, S.L.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Calle Emilio Alcalá Galiano, s/n Nave 5 Bis, 08940 Cornellá de Llobregat (Barcelona), España
Represented by
Prior art cited (3)
Vehicle compressor mounting bracket (pieza KC11 080 242) shown in installation manual published December 2011
Installation manual of L. Oliva Torras, S.A. · disclosed 2011-12-01
Photograph of vehicle compressor mounting bracket allegedly commercially sold by the invalidity applicant
Technical drawing/plan of vehicle compressor mounting bracket from the invalidity applicant's website, submitted with appeal
L. Oliva Torras website
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Invalidity applicant (appellant) argued that the contested RCD (vehicle compressor mounting bracket) lacked novelty and individual character compared to its own earlier design (pieza KC11 080 242), relying on images A, B and C, and contended the Invalidity Division incorrectly based the comparison solely on image A (the catalogue render) instead of image B (photograph of real product).
- ›The design holder maintained the comparison with image A was correct since image A shows the earlier sheet-steel welded version disclosed in 2011, while image B represents a later cast-aluminium version only manufactured from 2014; it also objected to the admissibility of image C submitted for the first time on appeal.
- ›The Board confirmed that images A and B depict different objects, that only image A was properly disclosed before April 2013, and that the MCR presents clear differences from the image-A design (elaborate ribbed cast appearance vs. basic sheet-metal construction), producing a clearly different overall impression on the informed user.
- ›The Board dismissed the appeal: the prior art does not destroy the novelty or individual character of the MCR; grounds under Articles 8 and 9 were also dismissed for lack of argument; costs awarded to the holder.
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 ↗ |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2274/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2273/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0093/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1575/2025-3 | 2026-04-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1394/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1396/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1395/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1318/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |