Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-10-15
R2199/2018-3
Contested design: 003852672-0011
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
David Kippingvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Agrippinawerft 24, 50678 Köln, Germany
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 (1)
flexible silicone strap building brick, offered for sale on amazon.co.uk by Strictly Briks
Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2016-04-21
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Design holder (Chrome Cherry) appealed the Invalidity Division decision declaring the toy assembly block tape RCD (No 3 852 672-0011) invalid over the 'Strictly Brik' design, but failed to file the statement of grounds within four months of the notification date (11 September 2018), the time limit expiring on 11 January 2019.
- ›The Registry notified the holder on 28 January 2019 that the deadline had passed; no comment was received.
- ›The Board applied Article 57 CDR and Article 35(1) CDIR: the four-month time limit is mandatory, no grounds were filed in time, and accordingly the appeal was inadmissible.
- ›Since the appeal 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 |
| R2198/2018-3 | 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 |