Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-02-27
R2484/2017-3
Contested design: 003023365-0004
Outcome
The Board dismisses the appeal and orders the invalidity applicant 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
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
FABULOUS CIPHER, LDA.via PDF extraction
Portugal (PT)
Rua da Mabor 104, Braga-Vilanova de Famalicão-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
Prior art cited (9)
Ottoman/pouffe (puf) design
Pinterest (www.pinterest.com) · disclosed 2013-12-02
Ottoman/pouffe (puf) design
Pinterest (www.pinterest.com) · disclosed 2013-09-06
Contemporary-style pouffe
Contemporary-style pouffe
Contemporary-style pouffe
Contemporary-style pouffe
Contemporary-style pouffe
Contemporary-style pouffe
Pouffe design
www.modernlinefurniture.com · www.modernlinefurniture.com · disclosed 2014-10-08
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant (appellant) challenged rejection of the invalidity application for an ottoman/pouffe (puf) design, arguing that eight prior designs from Pinterest had been sufficiently disclosed (disclosure confirmed by source code dates), that a new design from modernlinefurniture.com should be admitted as complementary evidence, and that the MCR produced the same overall impression (cylindrical form, capitoné top, beige upholstery, dark legs) as the prior designs.
- ›Holder (respondent) denied proven disclosure of models A and B, argued the new prior design on appeal was inadmissible, and maintained that the MCR's distinctive metal legs rising halfway up the sides distinguished it from all prior designs.
- ›The Board confirmed disclosure of all eight Pinterest models (URLs functional; Pinterest's global reach constitutes disclosure under Article 7 RDMC; source-code timestamps provide date evidence); rejected the modernlinefurniture.com design as introduced for the first time on appeal and therefore inadmissible.
- ›On individual character, the Board found none of the eight prior designs destroyed the MCR's individual character: the MCR's prominent metal legs rising along the outer wall differed from poufs with small legs below or no visible legs; the external section count (two vs. three) also differed; other differences included height/diameter proportions and presence or absence of legs.
- ›Appeal dismissed; applicant ordered to bear holder's costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberH. Salmi
- Registrarp.o. P. Nafz
Decision files
| 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 ↗ |