Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-02-05

R2381/2017-3

Contested design: 003023365-0002

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the design holder is ordered to bear the invalidity applicant's costs.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Desestimar el recurso. 2. Ordenar que la titular sufrague las costas de la solicitante de nulidad.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

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

Web disclosureA

Stool model A (furniture/decoration website)

www.palecek.com · www.palecek.com · disclosed 2015-08-18

Web disclosureB

Stool model B

Pinterest · Pinterest · disclosed 2015-02-20

Web disclosureC

Stool model C

Pinterest · Pinterest · disclosed 2016-01-30

Web disclosureD

Table model D

Pinterest · Pinterest · disclosed 2015-11-18

Web disclosureE

Table model E

Pinterest · Pinterest · disclosed 2015-06-26

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6Article 5Article 4

›Design holder (appellant) argued the RCD for stools (octagonal metal-rod frame with board top) differed from prior art model A (hexagonal frame) in geometric shape, colour, and material, producing a different overall impression for the informed user.
›Invalidity applicant defended the first-instance decision, arguing the polygonal structures produced the same overall impression and that hexagonal vs octagonal differences were only apparent under detailed analysis.
›The Board found both stools structurally identical (metal rod chassis with board top) and that the hexagon/octagon shape difference was only discernible on detailed examination; the dominant visual impression—polygonal metal-rod design from top to bottom—was the same in both models.
›Colour differences in the chassis and board material were insufficient to distinguish the overall impressions; the RCD produced the same general impression as model A.
›Appeal dismissed; design holder bears costs.

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 ↗