Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-07-10
R1399/2017-3
Contested design: 002217588-0004
Outcome
The contested decision is annulled; the Board re-examines the invalidity application and dismisses it; the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the costs.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
1. Anular la resolución recurrida; 2. Reexaminar la solicitud de nulidad; 3. Desestimar la solicitud de nulidad y el recurso; 4. Ordenar que la solicitante de nulidad cargue con las costas.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
L. OLIVA TORRAS, S.A.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Camí de Rajadell, s/n, 08241 Manresa, España
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
MECÁNICA DEL FRIOvia PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Emilio Alcalá Galiano, S/N Nave 5 bis, 08940 Cornellá De Llobregat, España
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
Metal bracket/coupling for vehicle refrigeration compressor (vehicle coupling)
Pieza KC09070171, manual de montaje octubre 2014 · Manual de montaje (portada fechada octubre 2014) de L. OLIVA TORRAS
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›L. Oliva Torras (invalidity applicant/appellant) argued that RCD No 2 217 588-0004 (vehicle couplings) is novel and lacks individual character relative to its prior design (piece KC09070171), supported by a 2014 assembly manual cover image and invoices from 2009–2013 showing sales of the same reference number.
- ›Design holder (Mecánica del Frio) challenged disclosure: the manual cover is dated October 2014, after the April 2013 filing date; argued the piece's appearance likely changed between 2009 and 2014 due to different manufacturing techniques (welded sheet metal vs. casting), so the referenced piece in the invoices need not look like the image in the 2014 manual.
- ›The Board found the only documentary evidence showing the prior design's appearance was the manual cover dated October 2014 — after the reference date of April 2013; invoices do not show the design; third-party declarations were of low probative value as they showed the same reference number for two visually different versions; technical drawings filed had no reference number, no date, and showed a different appearance.
- ›The Board concluded that disclosure of the prior design before 10 April 2013 had not been proven under Article 7(1) CDR; the invalidity application was dismissed and the applicant ordered to bear costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberH. Salmi
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2167/2023-3 | 2024-06-10 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1), Art 60(1) | — | 5 |
| R0837/2020-3 | 2021-11-30 | Decision annulled | Art 60(1) | — | 5 |
| R1213/2019-3 | 2020-11-19 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R1042/2018-3 | 2020-09-03 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R1043/2018-3 | 2020-09-03 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R1924/2019-3 | 2020-05-07 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1), Art 60(1) | — | 5 |
| R1546/2018-3 | 2019-01-22 | Decision annulled | Art 60(1) | — | 5 |
| R2215/2016-3 | 2018-06-29 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |