Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-06-28
R0987/2018-3
Contested design: 002753368-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the design holder is ordered to bear the invalidity applicant's fees and costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the invalidity applicant's fees and costs.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
FORMASTER S.A.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Fabryczna 24, 25-818 Kielce, Poland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Seventh Generation Ventures, Inc.via PDF extraction
United States (US)
60 Lake St., Burlington 05401, United States of America
Represented by
Axel Schiffer
Prior art cited (2)
'dafi' filtering bottle exhibited at Aquatech China 2014 trade fair, Shanghai, 25–27 June 2014
Aquatech China 2014 trade fair, Shanghai · disclosed 2014-06-25
Technical drawing of filtering bottle dated 15 October 2012 bearing invalidity applicant's name
Internal document (FORMASTER S.A.) · disclosed 2012-10-15
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Design holder (Seventh Generation Ventures) appealed the Invalidity Division's decision that declared RCD No 2 753 368-0001 (bottles) invalid for lack of individual character; holder challenged sufficiency of disclosure evidence (Aquatech China 2014) and argued the symmetric rounded form of the contested RCD creates a different overall impression from the 'dafi' prior design.
- ›Invalidity applicant (FORMASTER) maintained that photo A3 (confirmed by IT declaration A16), trade fair declarations from third-party attendees, and contextual evidence collectively proved disclosure of the 'dafi' bottle before the priority date of 13 February 2015; also argued that the overall shape similarity outweighs minor differences.
- ›The Board confirmed disclosure: photo A3 supported by declaration A16 (EXIF metadata), third-party declarations from Suzhou Kaho (A4) and Israeli company owner (A11), assessed together, proved exhibition of the 'dafi' bottle at Aquatech China 2014 before the priority date; the Board also rejected the request for oral proceedings.
- ›The Board found the two bottle designs share the same curved/waisted overall shape, wider at top and bottom and narrower in the middle; minor differences (neck visible in contested RCD, slightly more rounded bulges) are insufficient to create a different overall impression; the appeal was dismissed.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberE. Fink
- Registrarp.o. I. Romero Conrad
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 ↗ |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2422/2022-3 | 2024-01-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1103/2022-3 | 2023-02-15 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1734/2019-3 | 2020-06-15 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1731/2019-3 | 2020-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R0616/2019-3 | 2020-04-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R2443/2020-3 | 2023-01-17 | Decision annulled | Art 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 8 |
| R1747/2022-3 | 2024-01-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1562/2022-3 | 2023-05-31 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |