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

R2483/2017-3

Contested design: 003023365-0003

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

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

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

Table model A

www.houzz.com · www.houzz.com · disclosed 2015-01-11

Web disclosureB

Table model B

Pinterest · Pinterest · disclosed 2014-06-15

Web disclosureC

Table model C

www.almostmakesperfect.com · www.almostmakesperfect.com · disclosed 2013-04-09

Web disclosureD

Table model D

http://districtmillworks.com · districtmillworks.com · disclosed 2012-01-01

Web disclosureE

Table model E

www.antoinegdesign.com · www.antoinegdesign.com · disclosed 2016-01-08

Web disclosureFaz Inox⚠ rejected as evidence

Table model 'Faz Inox' introduced at appeal stage

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6Article 5Article 25(1)(c)Article 25(1)(d)Article 25(1)(e)Article 25(1)(f)Article 25(1)(g)

›Invalidity applicant (appellant) argued the RCD for display tables lacked individual character compared to prior art models A–E (and newly introduced 'Faz Inox'), as all shared a rectangular wooden top over a complex metal-rod base structure evoking industrial style.
›Holder argued the 'Faz Inox' model was inadmissible as it was first introduced on appeal, that functional constraints limited designer freedom, and that the RCD's distinctive trapezoid-base support system distinguished it from all prior art.
›The Board refused 'Faz Inox' as inadmissible (first introduced at appeal stage, contrary to Article 28 REDMC); the Board admitted Wayback Machine images supporting disclosure of models A, B and E as supplementary (not new) evidence.
›Comparing each model individually, the Board found the RCD's support system—a dense, complex trapezoid-shaped lattice of metal rods—produced a distinctly different overall impression from all five prior art designs, which each had simpler or structurally different support configurations.
›Appeal dismissed; invalidity applicant 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 ↗