Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-01-20
R0019/2018-3
Contested design: 002073155-0001
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 of the invalidity and the appeal proceedings.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Yotrio Group Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
No. 1 Qianjiang South Road, Linhai, Zhejiang 317004, People's Republic of China
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Zhejiang Zhengte Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
No. 811, Oriental Ave., Linhai, Zhejiang 317004, People's Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (5)
garden windshields, gazebo, garden or beach parasols, sunshades ('LECO Pavilion Catua')
RCD No 1892142-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-08-17
LECO catalogue 2011 / 2012 showing 'LECO Pavilion Catua'
LECO-Werke · disclosed 2011-02-08
Assembly instructions for 'AURIGA gazebo'
Collection of undated images titled 'textile floating in frame'
Selection of images titled 'additional gazebos with butterfly-shaped awnings'
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed arguing that the Invalidity Division should have considered additional images of 'Pavilion Catua' alongside RCD No 1892142-0001, that the contested RCD targets a different (lighter/translucent) product sector than the sturdy prior design, that the design corpus is saturated limiting freedom, and that the overall impression differs due to ball-shaped pole tops, decorated junctions, and delicate beams giving a slender/romantic appearance.
- ›The invalidity applicant responded that the assessment should focus on RCD No 1892142-0001 alone, that product sector differences are irrelevant, that the design freedom is wide, and that the characteristic 'butterfly' awning shape dominates the overall impression shared by both designs.
- ›The Board held that both designs show a sun sail pavilion with a rectangular butterfly-shaped awning on four poles of different heights; the differences in pole details, colour contrast, and awning attachment are minor variations perceived as belonging to the same design concept and insufficient to produce a different overall impression on the informed user.
- ›The appeal was dismissed, confirming the invalidity of the contested RCD for lack of individual character over prior RCD No 1892142-0001 (D1).
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurE. Fink
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1336/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 5 |
| R1015/2024-3 | 2024-11-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 5 |
| R1719/2023-3 | 2024-06-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 5 |
| R1747/2022-3 | 2024-01-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 5 |
| R0367/2022-3 | 2023-06-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 5 |
| R0082/2023-3 | 2023-06-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 5 |
| R0081/2023-3 | 2023-06-15 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 5 |
| R2025/2021-3 | 2022-07-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 5 |