Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-01-16
R1073/2017-3
Contested design: 003023712-0010
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the holder's costs.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
1. Desestimar el recurso. 2. Ordenar que la solicitante de nulidad sufrague las costas de la titular.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
FABULOUS CIPHER, LDA.via PDF extraction
Portugal (PT)
Rua da Mabor, 104, Braga- Vilanova de Famalicâo - Lousado, 4760 813 Lousado, Portugal
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
PARFOIS - BARATA & RAMILO, S.A.via PDF extraction
Portugal (PT)
Rua do Sistelo, 755 - Lugar de Santegãos, 4435-429 RIO TINTO, Portugal
Represented by
Prior art cited (14)
Display shelf model 'Fjalkinge'
www.ikea.com · www.ikea.com · disclosed 2013-12-01
Display shelf model 'Vittsjo'
www.ikea.com · www.ikea.com · disclosed 2012-04-01
Display shelf model 'Gilbert'
www.houzz.com · www.houzz.com · disclosed 2015-01-01
Display shelf model A1
www.raovat123.com · www.raovat123.com · disclosed 2009-09-21
Display shelf model A2
mydesigndump.blogspot.com.es · mydesigndump.blogspot.com.es · disclosed 2011-08-22
Display shelf model A3
inspiration.interio.ch · inspiration.interio.ch · disclosed 2015-01-28
Display shelf model A4
casacucina.forokd.com · casacucina.forokd.com · disclosed 2014-08-31
Display shelf model A5
www.design-mkt.com · www.design-mkt.com · disclosed 1980-01-01
Display shelf model A6
infoviewmagazine.com · infoviewmagazine.com · disclosed 2015-09-15
Display shelf model A7
www.amazon.de · www.amazon.de · disclosed 2015-12-07
Display shelf model A8
www.amazon.de · www.amazon.de · disclosed 2015-11-27
Display shelf model A9
www.archiproducts.com · www.archiproducts.com · disclosed 2011-01-01
Display shelf model A10
www.amazon.es · www.amazon.es · disclosed 2013-03-15
Display shelf model A11
www.amazon.co.uk · www.amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2015-10-13
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Invalidity applicant (appellant) argued the contested RCD for display shelving lacked individual character under Article 6 RDMC compared to prior designs Fjalkinge, Vittsjo and Gilbert, and introduced 11 new prior art items (A1–A11) at appeal stage.
- ›Holder argued the new prior art (A1–A11) was inadmissible as untimely, designer's freedom was broad, and that the RCD's specific configuration of uprights, shelves, and drawer-base produced a different overall impression.
- ›The Board refused all new prior art A1–A11 as inadmissible under Article 28 REDMC since prior designs must be included in the original invalidity application; it then compared the RCD with Fjalkinge, Vittsjo and Gilbert individually.
- ›The Board found that despite shared rectangular metal frame structure, specific differences in upright configuration, shelf distribution, and base drawer made the RCD produce a distinct overall impression from each prior design, confirming individual character.
- ›Appeal dismissed; invalidity applicant ordered to bear costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberG. Humphreys
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
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 ↗ |