Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-05-07
R1924/2019-3
Contested design: 005657897-0001
Outcome
The contested Invalidity Division decision is annulled; the case is remitted for further examination of the substance; each party bears its own appeal costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision; 2. Remits the case to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution; 3. Orders that each party bear its own costs and fees in the appeal proceedings.
CostsEach party bears its own costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
KPB Healthcare Ltd
United Kingdom (GB)
RSS, M3 Trade Park, Manor Way, Leigh Road, Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YA, United Kingdom
Holder · RCD owner
FBGC Limited
United Kingdom (GB)
FBGC Limited Styring House Farm, Nr Givendale, York, York YO42 1TL, United Kingdom
Prior art cited (1)
Ear wax removal kit / ear syringe (blue tip), manufactured by Jobar International Inc., introduced in the US in 2014 and imported into the UK by the invalidity applicant in 2015
JB7113 / ASIN B00LNGIZWA · Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk, eBay.com; Jobar International Inc. sales order dated 06/01/2015 · disclosed 2015-01-06
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant (KPB Healthcare) argued the contested ear syringe RCD (specifically its blue tip shown in views 1 and 2) lacks novelty/individual character over prior design model JB7113 (Jobar International), which had been publicly available since 2015; the Invalidity Division had rejected the application finding insufficient evidence of disclosure.
- ›The design holder (FBGC Limited) submitted no observations at appeal stage; before the Invalidity Division it had acknowledged the similarity of the tip and suggested deleting view 2.
- ›The Board admitted additional evidence filed on appeal (Amazon/eBay printouts, sales orders, email correspondence) as supplementary to evidence before the Invalidity Division and relevant to the outcome; it found the combination of evidence established disclosure of the JB7113 product before the RCD's filing date of 25 September 2018.
- ›The Board annulled the contested decision and remitted the case to the Invalidity Division to assess novelty and individual character on the merits; each party bears its own appeal costs given no substantive holding on validity was made.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberC. Rusconi
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2167/2023-3 | 2024-06-10 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1), Art 60(1) | — | 7 |
| R2427/2023-3 | 2024-07-31 | Decision partially annulled | Art 7(1), Art 60(1) | — | 6 |
| R0055/2022-3 | 2022-10-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 60(1) | — | 6 |
| R2443/2020-3 | 2023-01-17 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R0068/2022-3 | 2023-01-09 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R0093/2022-3 | 2022-10-25 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R0092/2022-3 | 2022-10-25 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R0811/2021-3 | 2021-10-26 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |