Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-04-08
R0616/2019-3
Contested design: 003305994-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the design holder is ordered to bear the invalidity applicant's fees and costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the fees and costs of the invalidity applicant.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Smartblock Oyvia PDF extraction
Finland (FI)
Hyttitie 8, 00700 Helsinki, Finland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Framery Oyvia PDF extraction
Finland (FI)
Patamäenkatu 7, 33900 Tampere, Finland
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
Office POD A movable workspace by OfficePOD Ltd, UK — disclosed via Twitter (19 Feb 2015), Instagram (22 Jun 2015) and manofmany.com (16 May 2015)
OfficePOD Ltd Twitter / Instagram / manofmany.com · disclosed 2015-02-19
Office POD B movable workspace by OfficePOD Ltd, UK — disclosed via Internet Archive of officepod.co.uk (19 Jan 2015), Twitter (11 Nov 2015), Instagram (7 Apr 2015), installed at Sotheby's Institute of Art, London
OfficePOD Ltd website / Internet Archive / Twitter / Instagram · disclosed 2015-01-19
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Design holder (appellant) argued that Office POD B had not been adequately disclosed (only front views, insufficient for a 3D product); that key differences — transparent front door and back wall vs. solid in the prior design, thick protruding frames, and prominent roof protrusion — produced a different overall impression; and that saturation of the design corpus meant the square/rounded-corner shape should be disregarded.
- ›Invalidity applicant (respondent) maintained high designer freedom meant minor differences were insufficient; the transparent door and back wall were optional features the informed user would treat as alternatives; the protrusion and vents were functional.
- ›The Board found Office POD B adequately disclosed from the available images; held saturation unproven (only 12 designs, insufficient evidence); confirmed the square shape, rounded corners and central door position dominated the overall impression; transparent vs. solid door/back wall were viewed by the informed user as optional configurations, not decisive.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the first-instance invalidation was confirmed.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberC. Negro
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2422/2022-3 | 2024-01-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1103/2022-3 | 2023-02-15 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1734/2019-3 | 2020-06-15 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1731/2019-3 | 2020-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R0987/2018-3 | 2019-06-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R2443/2020-3 | 2023-01-17 | Decision annulled | Art 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 8 |
| R1747/2022-3 | 2024-01-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1562/2022-3 | 2023-05-31 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |