Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-03-26
R2582/2017-3
Contested design: 003023381-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the design holder's costs.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
Desestimar el recurso. 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 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
Prior art cited (3)
Shop front/window display of 'Uterqüe' store in Moraleja Green shopping centre, Madrid
www.moralejagreen.com · disclosed 2014-06-01
Shop front/window display of 'Zara' store
http://www.skyscrapercity.com · www.skyscrapercity.com · disclosed 2013-05-15
Shop front/window display of 'Koton' store
cijeurope.com · cijeurope.com · disclosed 2015-05-25
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Invalidity applicant (appellant) argued that the RCD (shop decoration/window display) lacked individual character against the 'Zara' prior design and, newly on appeal, the 'Koton' prior design; it also maintained the 'Uterqüe 1' prior design was properly disclosed via a shopping centre website.
- ›Design holder argued that 'Koton' and most expert-report designs were inadmissible as new evidence on appeal, that the 'Uterqüe 1' disclosure was unproven, and that the RCD produced a sufficiently different overall impression from the 'Zara' design.
- ›The Board confirmed that prior designs introduced for the first time on appeal (including 'Koton') are inadmissible under Article 28 CDIR; expert-report designs without individual comparisons were also excluded; only 'Zara' (disclosed 2013) was accepted as a prior design.
- ›The Board found the 'Zara' image too unclear to allow meaningful comparison on many features important to the informed user; the two designs produced different overall impressions; all other grounds were unsubstantiated; appeal dismissed with costs against applicant.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberH. Salmi
- RegistrarN. Granado Carpenter
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 ↗ |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0861/2023-3 | 2024-02-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(1), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0862/2023-3 | 2024-02-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(1), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2349/2019-3 | 2020-09-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(1), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 28(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0837/2020-3 | 2023-08-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 28(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2444/2020-3 | 2023-05-15 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(1) | — | 5 |
| R1263/2021-3 | 2023-02-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 28(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2283/2019-3 | 2021-02-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 28(1)(b) | — | 5 |