Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-09-17
R0532/2019-3
Contested design: 004008910-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and 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
Promed GmbH kosmetische Erzeugnissevia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Lindenweg 11, 82490 Farchant, Germany
Holder · RCD owner
Centrumelektroniki spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnościąvia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Korfantego 7, 42-600 Tarnowskie Góry, Poland
Represented by
Prior art cited (6)
ProMedix figurative mark with electrocardiogram graphic
Polish trade mark No R.252 723 · Polish Patent Office Bulletin / EUIPO TMview database · disclosed 2013-05-31
ProMedix products offered on Amazon.de
Amazon.de · disclosed 2017-04-20
Word mark 'Promed'
EUTM No 6 206 718 · EUIPO
Word mark 'Promed'
EUTM No 12 885 489 · EUIPO
Figurative mark
EUTM No 14 771 331 · EUIPO
Figurative mark
EUTM No 15 868 681 · EUIPO
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed arguing that the Polish trade mark 'ProMedix' was not disclosed to the specialised circles (designers and graphic artists) who could not be expected to study Polish trade mark publications, and that Amazon.de offers fell within the 12-month grace period.
- ›The invalidity applicant maintained that the Polish trade mark destroyed novelty and that proof of use of earlier trade marks under Article 25(1)(e) CDR had been provided upon request.
- ›The Board held that publication of a prior design by any industrial property office constitutes disclosure under Article 7(1) CDR; the design holder failed to rebut the presumption of disclosure; the conflicting designs are identical; assessment of Article 25(1)(e) CDR grounds was unnecessary.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the contested RCD lacks novelty under Article 5 CDR in view of the identical prior Polish trade mark design.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberH. Salmi
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0181/2025-3 | 2025-05-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0827/2024-3 | 2025-03-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1336/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0797/2024-3 | 2025-01-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1123/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1125/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1124/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1015/2024-3 | 2024-11-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |