Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-02-04
R2413/2017-3
Contested design: 002603589-0003
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
Wei Luvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
c/o Dongguan Weihong Hardware and Plastic Products Co., Ltd., 188 Industrial Park, 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 1 969 361-0002 · EUIPO Office design bulletin · disclosed 2012-02-28
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 account properly for the narrow furniture/sofa sector, the near-specialist informed user, and that the wavy body and indented bracket were easily noticeable variations fully utilising the available design freedom.
- ›Invalidity applicant argued the sector was not restrictively narrow, the informed user was not a specialist, and the overall appearance of the hinges was highly similar with only minor differences.
- ›The Board confirmed a wide degree of designer freedom for hinges (supported by market evidence including catalogue and EUIPO database), finding both designs shared the same basic structure (round bearing, bracket, hinge body, extended part with washers and nut).
- ›Minor differences (indented bracket, wavy lower body) did not produce different overall impressions given the wide freedom; the RCD's differences were sufficient for novelty under Article 5 but not individual character under Article 6.
- ›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 |