DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001993320-0004

Other appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-02-12

R0701/2018-3

Contested design: 001993320-0004

CDRAppellant: applicantRCD lapsed at decision

Outcome

Appeal inadmissible

The appeal against the rejection of the restitutio in integrum request is dismissed as inadmissible.

Show verbatim operative text

Dismisses the appeal as inadmissible.

CostsNot specified

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Hisense Ronshen (Guangdong) Refrigerator Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

No 8 Ronggang Road, Ronggui, Shunde Foshan, Guangdong, People's Republic of China

Represented by

HANNA MOORE + CURLEY

Holder · RCD owner

No opposing holder — Other appeal · Board of Appeal.

Legal grounds invoked

Article 57Article 35(1)Article 67(2)

Argument summary

  • Design holder (appellant) appealed the rejection of its restitutio in integrum request; RCD No 1 993 320-0004 had lapsed on 16 February 2017 due to non-renewal and the restitutio request was filed outside the Article 67(2) CDR time limit.
  • Design holder's representative claimed a genuine docketing mistake caused the appeal notice to be filed on 16 April 2018, three days after the deadline of 13 April 2018, arguing good faith should render the appeal admissible.
  • The Board found the notice of appeal was filed beyond the two-month time limit under Article 57 CDR and was therefore inadmissible under Article 35(1) CDIR; good faith is irrelevant to the application of these provisions.
  • The Board rejected the request for an oral hearing as the written submissions were sufficient.
  • Appeal dismissed as inadmissible.

Deciding panel

  • ChairTh. M. Margellos
  • RapporteurC. Negro
  • MemberE. Fink
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0439/2019-32019-07-08Without deciding on the meritsArt 35(1)4
R0698/2018-32019-02-12Appeal inadmissibleArt 35(1)4
R0699/2018-32018-10-22Appeal inadmissibleArt 35(1)4
R0700/2018-32018-10-22Appeal inadmissibleArt 35(1)4
R1101/2024-32024-11-13Closed without deciding on the meritsArt 35(1)2
R0470/2024-32024-09-16Closed without deciding on the meritsArt 35(1)2
R0469/2024-32024-09-16Closed without deciding on the meritsArt 35(1)2
R2384/2023-32024-01-24Appeal inadmissibleArt 35(1)2