Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-07-23

R2746/2017-3

Contested design: 003023381-0002

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the holder's costs.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Desestimar el recurso. 2. Ordenar que la solicitante de nulidad sufrague las costas de la titular.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

FABULOUS CIPHER, LDA.via PDF extraction

Portugal (PT)

Rua da Mabor, 104, Braga- Vilanova de Famalicâo - Lousado, 4760 813 Lousado, Portugal

Represented by

GARRIGUES IP, S.L.P.

Holder · RCD owner

PARFOIS - BARATA & RAMILO, S.A.via PDF extraction

Portugal (PT)

Rua do Sistelo, 755 - Lugar de Santegãos, 4435-429 Rio Tinto, Portugal

Represented by

SANTIAGO MEDIANO ABOGADOS, S.L.P.

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosure

Bottega Veneta store interior design

www.luxuo.com, 27 September 2013 · www.luxuo.com · disclosed 2013-09-27

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5Article 6Article 25(1)(c)Article 25(1)(d)Article 25(1)(e)Article 25(1)(f)Article 25(1)(g)Article 28(1)(b)Article 63Article 70(1)

Argument summary

›Applicant (appellant) sought invalidity of RCD No 003023381-0002 (shop decoration) for lack of individual character over the 'Bottega Veneta' prior design and additional designs in an expert report, arguing the Division failed to properly weigh similarities.
›The holder argued that only the 'Bottega Veneta' design was validly invoked — designs in the expert report lacked individual comparisons — and that the RCD produced a different overall impression due to differences in shelving, lighting, and space layout.
›The Board confirmed that designs appearing only in the expert report without individual comparison were inadmissible under Article 28(1)(b) CDR; only 'Bottega Veneta' was properly invoked.
›The Board found the RCD and the 'Bottega Veneta' design produce different overall impressions (differences in shelf layout, lighting prominence, spatial feel) and upheld the Invalidity Division's rejection.

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 ↗