Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-03-12
R1485/2018-3
Contested design: 002901033-0002
Outcome
The appeal is upheld; the contested decision is annulled; registered Community design No 2 901 033-0002 is declared invalid; the design holders are ordered to reimburse fees and costs totalling EUR 2 050.
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 (1)
Data strip technical drawings (Offer drawing FP18-0986, dated 10 August 2015) and email correspondence with Rossmann, including photographs of data strips presented in a Rossmann shop in Łódź in August 2015
HL Display Polska Sp. z o.o. / Rossmann · disclosed 2015-08-10
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant (appellant) argued the contested RCD (data strip) subsisted solely in features dictated by technical function under Article 8(1) CDR, and that prior designs had been publicly disclosed before the filing date under Article 7(1) CDR via email correspondence and in-store testing at a Rossmann shop in Łódź.
- ›Holders (respondents) contended alternative designs fulfilling the same function existed (rebutting Article 8(1)), that the prior designs were never made available to the public, and that the data strip is not a component of a complex product.
- ›The Board found all features of the data strip (holder, pocket, longitudinal hinge) are solely dictated by technical function per Article 8(1) CDR, and that the holders failed to identify any non-technical consideration; disclosure evidence was therefore not examined further.
- ›The Board upheld the appeal and declared the RCD invalid, ordering the design holders to bear fees and costs totalling EUR 2 050.
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 |