Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-04-07
R1140/2019-3
Contested design: 002069369-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the applicant is ordered to bear the costs of both the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerdeverfahrens.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Shuangma Plastic Manufacturing Inc.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
Shangjin Village, Yanjiang Town, Linhai City, Zhejiang 317000, Volksrepublik China
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
LUvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
No. 143 Area 1, Pengjie Ju, Pengjie Town, Luqiao District Taizhou City, Zhejiang Province, Volksrepublik China
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
GENIUS Nicer Dicer Plus food cutter/slicer
YouTube video published 20 December 2011 · YouTube · disclosed 2011-12-20
food cutting/slicing machine
Chinese design No CN3604236D · Chinese design registry · disclosed 2006-01-31
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Invalidity applicant (appellant) challenged RCD No 2 069 369-0001 for food-cutting machines under Article 25(1)(a) GGV (the four views show inconsistent hinge construction, allegedly depicting different products) and for lack of individual character under Article 25(1)(b) GGV over a YouTube video of the 'Nicer Dicer Plus' and a Chinese design.
- ›Design holder (respondent) argued the alleged hinge differences were new arguments raised for the first time on appeal, that minor variations arose from different perspectives, and that the Invalidity Division correctly found distinctive features.
- ›The Board held that: (i) the applicant had raised the hinge argument before the Invalidity Division, so it was not new; (ii) reading the views together showed a single coherent product — a container with a lateral flip-lid and integrated cutting insert — and any apparent hinge discrepancies were attributable to different perspectives and photographic parameters; (iii) the Article 25(1)(b) ground was not before the Board as the appeal was limited to the Article 25(1)(a) rejection.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the applicant ordered to bear all costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberG. Humphreys
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2028/2023-3 | 2024-04-15 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R0573/2022-3 | 2023-01-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R0574/2022-3 | 2023-01-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R1956/2020-3 | 2022-11-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R1101/2020-3 | 2022-11-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R1800/2021-3 | 2022-09-05 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R2060/2019-3 | 2022-02-01 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R0026/2019-3 | 2020-02-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |