Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-03-12
R1484/2018-3
Contested design: 002901033-0001
Outcome
The contested decision is annulled, the contested RCD (data strip / batten) is declared invalid because all its features of appearance are solely dictated by technical function under Article 8(1) CDR, and the design holders are ordered to pay EUR 2 050 in fees and costs to the invalidity applicant.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision; 2. Declares the invalidity of the contested RCD; 3. Orders that the design holders reimburse the fees and costs incurred by the invalidity applicant; 4. Fixes the amount of fees and costs to be reimbursed by the design holders to the invalidity applicant for the invalidity and appeal proceedings at EUR 2 050.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €2,050
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
HL Display Polska Sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Nakielska 3, 01-106 Warszawa, Poland
Represented by
Anna Korbela
Holder · RCD owner
Waldemar Małyskavia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Pachnąca 14, 02-790 Warszawa, Poland
Prior art cited (3)
Data strip / batten — technical drawing dated 10 August 2015, annexed to email of 28 August 2015 sent to Rossmann
Offer drawing FP18-0986 · Email correspondence between invalidity applicant's employees and Rossmann's employees · disclosed 2015-08-28
Data strip / batten — technical drawing dated 7 September 2015, annexed to email of 16 October 2015
Offer drawing HH18 · Email correspondence between invalidity applicant and Rossmann · disclosed 2015-10-16
Data strips installed for testing in a Rossmann shop in Łódź (Poland) in August 2015, evidenced by photographs and affidavits
Rossmann shop, Łódź, Poland · disclosed 2015-08-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant (HL Display Polska) argued that the contested RCD for a data strip (batten) subsists entirely in features dictated by technical function (Article 8(1) CDR): the 'holder' grips a shelf edge, the 'pocket' holds information labels, and the longitudinal 'hinge' connects the two; it also alleged prior disclosure in a Rossmann shop in Łódź and that the strip is an invisible component part of a complex product.
- ›The design holders (Małyska and Jałoszyński) denied technical function dictated all features by invoking the multiplicity-of-forms theory, argued prior disclosure was not proven (untranslated affidavits, unreliable photos, single-store display insufficient), and contended the contested RCD is not a component of a complex product.
- ›The Board found the contested RCD is not a component of a complex product. Applying the DOCERAM test (C-395/16), it found that all three features of appearance (holder, pocket, hinge) are solely the result of technical considerations: the design holders were unable to cite any single non-technical consideration that influenced the appearance. The multiplicity-of-forms argument is insufficient per DOCERAM.
- ›Since the invalidity ground under Article 8(1) CDR succeeded, the Board annulled the first-instance decision and declared the RCD invalid; no need to examine disclosure or other grounds.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurG. Humphreys
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2504/2022-3 | 2023-06-28 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2030/2022-3 | 2023-06-07 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2415/2018-3 | 2023-03-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2416/2018-3 | 2023-03-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2417/2018-3 | 2023-03-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2443/2020-3 | 2023-01-17 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0068/2022-3 | 2023-01-09 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0093/2022-3 | 2022-10-25 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |