Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-02-12
R2543/2017-3
Contested design: 001819558-0002
Outcome
The Board annuls the first-instance decision, declares the contested RCD invalid for lack of individual character, and orders the design holder to bear all costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision; 2. Declares the invalidity of the contested RCD; 3. Orders the design holder to bear the invalidity applicant's costs and fees in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
PIEJŪRA, SIAvia PDF extraction
LV
"Avoti", Nīcas pagasts, Nīcas novads, LV-3473, Latvia
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
GAMMA-A, SIAvia PDF extraction
LV
Traleru iela 30, Rīga, LV-1030, Latvia
Represented by
Prior art cited (9)
Glass jar 'Pesasur' advertised in Italian professional magazine Il Pesce, January 2010
Il Pesce (Italian professional magazine) · disclosed 2010-01-01
Glass jar design
RCD No 270 533-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2005-02-22
Glass jar design
RCD No 578 778-0003 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2006-01-01
Glass jar 'Bering' — smoked sprats exported to Russia in November/December 2010 by UAB Provit Industrija
UAB Provit Industrija declaration, veterinary certificate and bill of lading · disclosed 2010-11-01
Glass jar 'Dovgan' — smoked sprats sold in over 1,200 stores in Germany since 2010
Dovgan GmbH declaration · disclosed 2010-01-01
Glass jar 'Memelburgo Sprotai' — smoked sprats sold in Lithuania as of 2004
UAB Provit Industrija declaration · disclosed 2004-01-01
Glass jar 'Delikatesu Era' — smoked sprats sold in Lithuania as of 2010
UAB Provit Industrija declaration · disclosed 2010-01-01
Glass jar from Glashuette GmbH (German manufacturer of glass containers)
www.nuvc.del · Glashuette GmbH website · disclosed 2013-01-01
Three-dimensional Latvian trade mark
Latvian mark No M-13-44 · Latvia · disclosed 2013-01-18
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant (appellant) argued the earlier 'Bering' jar design had been sufficiently disclosed by trade use, that declarations by UAB Provit Industrija and Dovgan GmbH were reliable third-party evidence, and that the contested RCD lacked novelty and individual character; it also alleged the Invalidity Division committed a procedural violation by not ruling on Article 8 CDR.
- ›Design holder (respondent) did not submit observations on appeal; at first instance it challenged the credibility and corroboration of the declarations and argued the contested RCD had distinctive features.
- ›The Board found the Article 8 complaint unfounded since the applicant had argued technical function only in the context of designer's freedom, not as an independent ground. It accepted the 'Bering' disclosure as proven via the Lithuanian company's declaration (meeting the Article 65 CDR affirmation standard) corroborated by veterinary certificate and bill of lading.
- ›On individual character, the Board found the contested RCD and the 'Bering' design produced the same overall impression (identical or near-identical transparent glass jar with a circular cross-section, same diameter/height proportions, circular lid of the same thickness), with the only difference being lid colour (gold vs. black), which was insufficient to create a different impression on an informed user.
- ›Appeal upheld; contested decision annulled; RCD declared invalid for lack of individual character under Article 6 CDR; design holder bears all costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2167/2023-3 | 2024-06-10 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R2443/2020-3 | 2023-01-17 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R0068/2022-3 | 2023-01-09 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R0092/2022-3 | 2022-10-25 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R0093/2022-3 | 2022-10-25 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R0811/2021-3 | 2021-10-26 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R1434/2020-3 | 2021-06-25 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R1856/2019-3 | 2021-02-01 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |