Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-04-01

R1145/2018-3

Contested design: 002618413-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and costs are imposed on the invalidity applicant.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Desestimar el recurso. 2. Imponer las costas al solicitante de nulidad.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Applicant · invalidity challenger

CONSELL INSULAR D'EIVISSAvia PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Avda. España, 49, 07800 Ibiza (Baleares), España

Represented by

Holder · RCD owner

DÑA. GEMMA SERRA VILAvia PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

C/ Romaní, 8, 08192 Sant Quirze del Valles (Barcelona), España

Represented by

Web disclosureD1

Espadrille/alpargata design from article 'Cursos que preservan la tradición' published in Diario de Ibiza

http://www.diariodeibiza.es · Diario de Ibiza (www.diariodeibiza.es) · disclosed 2014-06-23

Web disclosureD2

Espadrille/alpargata design from article 'El hombre de la alpargata' published on blog alvarodelarica.com

http://www.alvarodelarica.com · Blog www.alvarodelarica.com · disclosed 2014-04-24

Web disclosureD3

Espadrille/alpargata design from article 'Nueva promoción de artesanos de artículos tradicionales' published in Diario de Ibiza

http://www.diariodeibiza.es · Diario de Ibiza (www.diariodeibiza.es) · disclosed 2008-06-22

Web disclosureD4

Espadrille/alpargata design from article 'Espardeñas – Insotel – Ibiza' published on blog franciscogarvi.com

http://franciscogarvi.com · Blog http://franciscogarvi.com · disclosed 2014-10-03

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6Article 7Article 8Article 56Article 57Article 63Article 70(1)

›Invalidity applicant (appellant) argued that the contested RCD (alpargata/espadrille) lacked novelty and individual character relative to four prior designs D1–D4, contending differences in braiding and closure patterns were insignificant against highly similar common features such as shape, sole material, and overall form.
›Design holder did not submit observations on appeal.
›The Board confirmed the Invalidity Division's findings: D1, D2 and D3 show linear horizontal braiding on the toe cap, which is clearly different from the RCD's three interlaced bands with fine cross-stitching; D4 shows eight narrower bands with coarser stitching, also clearly different; the toe cap and heel area are the most visually significant elements given the broad designer freedom.
›The Board found the differences sufficient to produce different overall impressions on the informed user; the RCD possesses individual character; the appeal was dismissed with costs against the applicant.

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 ↗