Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-03-19
R0055/2018-3
Contested design: 002832873-0001
Outcome
The Board dismisses the holder's appeal, confirming the invalidity of the contested RCD, and orders the design holder to bear the invalidity applicant's appeal costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the invalidity applicant's costs and fees in the appeal proceedings.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
GAMMA-A, SIAvia PDF extraction
LV
Meža iela 4a, Rīga, LV-1048, Latvia
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
PIEJŪRA, SIAvia PDF extraction
LV
"Avoti", Nīcas pagasts, Nīcas novads, LV-3473, Latvia
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
Glass jar (packaging for foodstuffs), published February 2011 in Community Design Bulletin
RCD No 1 819 558-0002 · Community Design Bulletin / EUIPO website · disclosed 2011-02-16
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Design holder (appellant) sought suspension of proceedings pending outcome of R 2543/2017-3 (challenging the validity of the earlier design RCD No 1 819 558-0002 used against it), and argued that the graphic features (labels, figurative elements, trade marks) on the contested RCD endowed it with individual character over the earlier design.
- ›Invalidity applicant (respondent) did not submit observations on appeal.
- ›The Board rejected the suspension request: what matters is whether the earlier design was disclosed (published in the Community Design Bulletin in 2011, well before the contested RCD's 2015 filing date), not whether it is still legally protected.
- ›On individual character, the Board confirmed the first-instance finding: both designs show a transparent glass jar with the same circular section and diameter/height proportions; graphic elements (labels, trade marks) on the contested RCD are expressions of commercial communication, not design features attracting the informed user's attention; the lid colour difference (blue/gold vs. gold) was insufficient to create different overall impressions.
- ›Appeal dismissed; design holder ordered to bear appeal 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 ↗ |