Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-05-13
R0585/2019-3
Contested design: 002371591-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the design holder is ordered to bear the invalidity applicant's costs in both the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Dvectis CZ s.r.o.via PDF extraction
Czechia (CZ)
Příkop 843/4, 60200 Brno, Czech Republic
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
YADO s.r.o.via PDF extraction
SK
Pstruhárska 785/5, 972 51 Handlová, Slovakia
Represented by
Prior art cited (3)
'Fitvankúš' support pillow shown in four colours (black, red, blue, beige) on Facebook
Facebook 'Fitvankúš' account · Facebook page of Fitvankúš · disclosed 2012-09-10
'Fitvankúš' support pillow (red version) shown on Slovak internet blog
http://blog.zdravy-zivot.sk/2012/05/fit-vankus-na-sedenie.html · blog.zdravy-zivot.sk · disclosed 2012-05-01
'Fitvankúš' support pillow in four versions with different logos, article dated 10/04/2012
http://abcinterier.sk · abcinterier.sk · disclosed 2012-04-10
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Design holder (appellant) argued that the earlier 'Fitvankúš' pillow represented only an early development stage with minor differences from the final RCD, and that declaring the RCD invalid would unfairly allow the imitator to continue copying the design holder's unique product.
- ›Invalidity applicant relied on Annexes 1, 2 and 4 showing the 'Fitvankúš' pillow disclosed before the 12-month grace period; it also sought expedited proceedings due to pending infringement proceedings in Czech Republic.
- ›The Board, acting on remittal following General Court judgment T-30/18 (which found the appeal admissible), confirmed that the 'Fitvankúš' pillow was disclosed in April–September 2012, well outside the 12-month grace period preceding the December 2013 filing; the earlier red pillow is identical to the RCD (same shape, size, colour, edge stitching, padding profile); colour difference and logo are immaterial details under Article 5(2) CDR.
- ›The Board dismissed the appeal, confirming the RCD lacks novelty; costs ordered against the design holder.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberA. Szanyi-Felkl
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| 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 ↗ |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0856/2022-3 | 2023-06-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 5(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1562/2022-3 | 2023-05-31 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(2) | — | 5 |
| R0542/2022-3 | 2023-04-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 5(1)(b), Art 7(2) | — | 5 |
| R0560/2022-3 | 2022-11-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(2) | — | 5 |
| R1290/2021-3 | 2022-10-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(2) | — | 5 |
| R1289/2021-3 | 2022-10-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(2) | — | 5 |
| R0055/2022-3 | 2022-10-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(2) | — | 5 |
| R1288/2021-3 | 2022-06-02 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(2) | — | 5 |