Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-01-28
R2412/2017-3
Contested design: 002603589-0002
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the design holder is ordered to bear the invalidity applicant's fees and costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the fees and costs incurred by the invalidity applicant.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Dongguan Weihong Hardware and Plastic Products Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
B3 Building, Huahong Industrial Park, No. 92, 188 Industrial Avenue, Pingshan Village, Tangxia Town, Dongguan City, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
ANMART Spółka Jawna Ślusarek i Spółkavia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Podrzecze 161, 33-386 Podegrodzie, Poland
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
Hinges [hardware]
Community design No 2 291 112-0001 · EUIPO Office Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2013-08-16
State-of-the-art sofa hinges
Stalmot & Wolmet catalogue 2011 · Stalmot & Wolmet catalogue · disclosed 2011-01-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Design holder (appellant) argued the Invalidity Division failed to properly assess the informed user, designer's degree of freedom, and that visible modifications (three notches on bracket, wavy hinge body) were distinctive enough to produce a different overall impression given the specialist informed user.
- ›Invalidity applicant argued the sector was not as narrow as claimed, the informed user was not a specialist, and the degree of freedom was wide as shown by market evidence; the wavy/indent differences were minor.
- ›The Board found the designer's freedom for hinges was not substantially limited, as evidenced by market examples; the common basic structure (round bearing, bracket, hinge body, extended part) dominated the overall impression, while the indented bracket and wavy lower side were minor details.
- ›The Board confirmed that the differences between the RCD and the prior design did not produce a different overall impression on the informed user under Article 6 CDR.
- ›Appeal dismissed; design holder bears costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarI. Romero Conrad
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2471/2023-3 | 2024-08-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2422/2022-3 | 2024-01-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2206/2021-3 | 2022-12-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0133/2022-3 | 2022-12-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0055/2022-3 | 2022-10-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2054/2021-3 | 2022-08-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2028/2021-3 | 2022-07-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0303/2021-3 | 2022-07-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |