Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-10-15
R2198/2018-3
Contested design: 003852672-0003
Outcome
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible for failure to submit the statement of grounds within the four-month time limit; each party bears its own costs.
Show verbatim operative text
Rejects the appeal as inadmissible; Orders that each party bear its own costs in the appeal procedure.
CostsEach party bears its own costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Mediashop GmbHvia PDF extraction
Austria (AT)
Schneiderstraße 1, Top 1, 2620 Neunkirchen, Austria
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
CHROME CHERRY DESIGN STUDIO (PTY) LTDvia PDF extraction
ZA
Unit 304, Salt Circle Arcade, 19 Kent Street, Salt River, Cape Town 7925, South Africa
Represented by
Prior art cited (8)
adhesive tape with studs, offered for sale on Amazon.co.uk
Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2017-04-06
Lego brick
German design No M9 307 382-0040 · German design register · disclosed 1994-01-01
Lego brick
German design No M9 407 494-0022 · German design register · disclosed 1995-01-01
Lego brick
German design No M9 307 382-0039 · German design register · disclosed 1994-01-01
utility model
DE20 2013 104 194 · German utility model register · disclosed 2013-11-14
baseplate mat for toy assembly blocks, offered for sale on Amazon.co.uk
Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2015-10-29
toy building block tape, advertised by Ontel Products Corporation
Ontel Products Corporation website · disclosed 2017-04-06
Mattel design published as US patent
US patent publication · disclosed 2016-11-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Design holder (Chrome Cherry) appealed the Invalidity Division decision declaring the toy assembly block tape RCD invalid over the 'Build Pro' design, but failed to file the statement of grounds within four months of the notification date (28 September 2018), the time limit expiring on 28 January 2019.
- ›The design holder withheld its statement of grounds pending correction of an erroneous Register entry by the Operations Department that had marked the invalidity as final; it argued this error justified the delay.
- ›The Board held that the four-month deadline under Article 57 CDR is mandatory with no extension, and the erroneous Register entry could not relieve the holder of the obligation to file grounds in time — the error was obvious and did not affect the time limit.
- ›The appeal was rejected as inadmissible; since it could not proceed to judgment, neither party needed to act and each bore its own costs under Article 70(4) CDIR.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberH. Salmi
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1172/2022-3 | 2022-12-02 | Appeal inadmissible | Art 35(1) | — | 5 |
| R1171/2022-3 | 2022-11-30 | Appeal inadmissible | Art 35(1) | — | 5 |
| R2022/2021-3 | 2022-06-21 | Appeal inadmissible | Art 35(1) | — | 5 |
| R0658/2020-3 | 2020-08-24 | Appeal inadmissible | Art 35(1) | — | 5 |
| R0302/2019-3 | 2019-11-18 | Appeal inadmissible | Art 35(1) | — | 5 |
| R2199/2018-3 | 2019-10-15 | Appeal inadmissible | Art 35(1) | — | 5 |
| R2200/2018-3 | 2019-10-15 | Appeal inadmissible | Art 35(1) | — | 5 |
| R1926/2018-3 | 2018-12-10 | Appeal inadmissible | Art 35(1) | — | 5 |