Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-04-24
R2686/2017-3
Contested design: 002613349-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the design holder is ordered to bear the costs incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(it)
1. Il ricorso è respinto; 2. La titolare dovrà sopportare le spese sostenute dalla richiedente la nullità.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
CERAMICA CIELO S.p.A.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Falerina, km 7.800, 01034 Fabrica di Roma (VT), Italia
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
CERAMICA FLAMINIA S.p.A.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
S.S. Flaminia, km 54, 630, 01033 Civita Castellana, Italia
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
Wall-hung WC toilet model 'Sfera 50' (CATALANO), shown in catalogue 'CATALANO the essence of ceramics TECH 01.2013'
CATALANO product catalogue, January 2013 · disclosed 2013-01-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Design holder (appellant/titolare) argued: (1) the Invalidity Division violated its right of reply by not allowing response to the applicant's supplementary brief; (2) D1 consisted only of technical drawings and could not be compared; (3) the RCD has individual character due to absence of rim (brida), a continuous-veil flush outlet, and a more square-profile siphon; it submitted Annex A with comparative photographs.
- ›Invalidity applicant (richiedente) argued: Annex A was inadmissible as new evidence; the absence of rim is technically dictated; the 'veletta' flush feature is imperceptible from the filed representations; the siphon difference is barely visible and both siphons are ultimately rounded; D1 (technical drawing) is a valid prior art document.
- ›The Board found no fatal procedural defect; admitted Annex A as clarificatory; accepted D1 as a valid prior design (technical drawings can constitute prior art); confirmed designer freedom is broad for WC shapes; found the alleged differences (rim, flush, siphon) are technically dictated, barely visible or negligible, while key common features (elliptic bowl, D-shaped drain, exterior proportions, wall-mounted siphon) dominate the overall impression.
- ›The Board confirmed the RCD produces the same overall impression as D1; appeal dismissed with costs against design holder.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurG. Humphreys
- MemberC. Rusconi
- RegistrarI. Romero Conrad
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |