Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-07-25
R0931/2018-3
Contested design: 001316483-0001
Outcome
The contested decision is annulled, RCD No 1 316 483-0001 is declared invalid for lack of novelty, and the design holder is ordered to bear the appellant's costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision and declares RCD No 1 316 483-0001 invalid; 2. Orders the defendant to bear the costs incurred by the appellant.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Shih Chieh Hungvia PDF extraction
Taiwan (TW)
3F, n° 17, Hou Street, Xindian District, New Taipei City, Taiwan
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Curve-Ovia PDF extraction
Belgium (BE)
Tongersesteenweg 111, 3800 Sint-Truiden, Belgium
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
bent/curved hair comb
Taiwanese patent No 1 424 823 · Taiwan (INID code 43 publication date) · disclosed 2010-12-16
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Invalidity applicant (appellant) challenged RCD No 1 316 483-0001 (comb) for lack of novelty and individual character versus Taiwanese patent No 1 424 823 (bent comb, published 16 December 2010), and also argued the design was solely dictated by technical function under Article 8(1) CDR.
- ›The design holder argued the Taiwanese patent was not fully translated at filing (rendering it inadmissible), was a Taiwanese-language document unlikely to be known in the EU, and that remaining differences were sufficient to confer novelty and individual character.
- ›The Board admitted the full patent translation (late submissions permissible under Article 63(2) CDR) and found that the Invalidity Division had incorrectly refused it; the Board confirmed disclosure date of 16 December 2010 via INID codes.
- ›The Board found the contested RCD lacks novelty: the remaining differences (tooth thickness, tooth-tip form, base thickness) are immaterial details under Article 5 CDR when taking into account the different means of representation (drawing vs. photograph); the appeal was allowed.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurA. Szanyi Felkl
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2443/2020-3 | 2023-01-17 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0092/2022-3 | 2022-10-25 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0093/2022-3 | 2022-10-25 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0054/2025-3 | 2025-09-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 63(2), Art 5(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 5(1)(b), Art 7(1) | — | 6 |
| R2427/2023-3 | 2024-07-31 | Decision partially annulled | Art 7(1), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |
| R0856/2022-3 | 2023-06-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 5(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R0055/2022-3 | 2022-10-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |