Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-03-17
R2664/2017-3
Contested design: 000107834-0025
Outcome
The appeal is upheld; the contested decision (which declared the RCD invalid) is annulled; the application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected; the applicant is ordered to bear the holder's costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision and rejects the application for a declaration of invalidity; 2. Orders the applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
GROUP NIVELLES NVvia PDF extraction
Belgium (BE)
Ambachtsweg 14, 3890 Gingelom, Belgium
Represented by
Hans Jonkhout
Holder · RCD owner
Easy Sanitary Solutions B.V.via PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
Nijverheidsstraat 60, 7575 BK Oldenzaal, The Netherlands
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
Shower drains (six designs), registered by Easy Sanitary Solutions B.V., published in WIPO Bulletin on 30 June 2002
DM/059828 · WIPO Hague Express database · disclosed 2002-06-30
Blücher product catalogues (1998 and 2000), page 33, showing cover plate for drainage channel for liquid waste
Blücher catalogues · disclosed 1998-01-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant (respondent) originally based its application on International Design DM/059828 and subsequently on Blücher catalogue images; the holder (appellant) appealed the Invalidity Division's decision declaring the RCD invalid for lack of novelty, and the case went through annulment by the General Court and further to the Court of Justice, which ruled that the Board had erred in using only a cover plate as the prior design and that the Blücher catalogue designs were inadmissible as they were not indicated in the original invalidity application.
- ›Following remittal, the applicant argued the contested RCD lacked individual character compared to DM/059828 and that features were technically dictated; the holder argued significant differences existed between the RCD and all prior designs, especially the closed decorated cover plate with elongated lateral slots.
- ›The Board found that only DM/059828 could serve as admissible prior art; that none of the features of the contested RCD were solely dictated by technical function under Article 8(1) CDR; and that the contested RCD produces a different overall impression on the informed user than any of the six prior designs in DM/059828, due to its closed decorated cover plate, lateral elongated slots, and thin outer edges.
- ›The Board upheld the appeal, annulled the contested decision, rejected the invalidity application, and ordered the applicant to bear costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- MemberA. Szanyi Felkl
- MemberC. Rusconi
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1784/2022-3 | 2024-08-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1936/2023-3 | 2024-04-09 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2238/2022-3 | 2024-01-15 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0605/2021-3 | 2022-12-13 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1223/2021-3 | 2022-11-23 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1221/2021-3 | 2022-11-23 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1220/2021-3 | 2022-06-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1222/2021-3 | 2022-06-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |