Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-01-15
R2512/2018-3
Contested design: 000993605-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the design holder is ordered to bear the costs of 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
Villa Verde Sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Szkotnik 9, 33-240 Zabno, Poland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
D-Light Device B.V.via PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
Groenestraat 294, 6531 JC Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Represented by
Prior art cited (6)
'TI-Light' design — candle sticker product
Schawe Warenvertrieb, Germany · disclosed 2007-05-07
German utility model
DE 20 2006 015 660 U1 · German Patent Office · disclosed 2007-02-22
electrical cord retracting mechanism
US 3 705 962 · USPTO · disclosed 1972-12-12
candles
RCD No 249 511-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2005-02-08
message candle / surprise candle with non-burnable plate
US 2005/0 079 465 A1 · USPTO · disclosed 2005-04-14
display candle
US 3 744 957 · USPTO · disclosed 1973-07-10
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed, arguing that prior design D5 (US patent 2005/0 079 465 A1) does not show a circular shape but an oval one, that its hole is not centrically positioned, that surface and thickness features differ, and that the proportion of hole to disc size is a material distinguishing feature.
- ›The invalidity applicant responded that D5 discloses a circular shape (confirmed by reference to 'center' in the patent text), a plain surface, thin profile, and centrally-positioned circular hole; absolute dimensions are irrelevant; any differences are immaterial.
- ›The Board found that D5 discloses a circular disc-like shape with a central circular hole and thin profile identical to the contested RCD; all alleged differences are attributable to imperfect hand-drawing or are immaterial details such as the slightly smaller proportion of hole to disc.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the contested decision declaring RCD No 993 605-0001 invalid for lack of novelty over D5 was confirmed.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberG. Humphreys
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |