Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-10-15
R2200/2018-3
Contested design: 003852672-0018
Outcome
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible; each party bears its own costs in the appeal proceedings.
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)
Strictly Brik flexible silicone strap building brick
amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2016-04-21
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder (appellant) appealed the Invalidity Division's decision declaring RCD No 3 852 672-0018 invalid for lack of individual character over the 'Strictly Brik' silicone building brick design disclosed on Amazon.co.uk in April 2016.
- ›The design holder did not file the written statement of grounds within the four-month time limit (expiring 11 January 2019), despite warnings from the Registry.
- ›The Board found the appeal non-compliant with Article 57 CDR (last sentence) because the statement of grounds was not filed within the required four-month period after notification of the contested decision.
- ›The appeal was rejected as inadmissible; no costs order was rendered against either party as the respondent undertook no procedural activity.
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 |
| R2198/2018-3 | 2019-10-15 | Appeal inadmissible | Art 35(1) | — | 5 |
| R1926/2018-3 | 2018-12-10 | Appeal inadmissible | Art 35(1) | — | 5 |