DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002187997-0004

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-05-18

R2666/2019-3

Contested design: 002187997-0004

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed; the holder bears the costs of both the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text(it)

1. Il ricorso è respinto; 2. Le spese sostenute dalla richiedente nei procedimenti di nullità e di ricorso sono poste a carico della titolare.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Park B.V.via PDF extraction

Netherlands (NL)

Prof. J.H. Bavincklaan 2, 1183AT Amstelveen, Paesi Bassi

Represented by

TURNSTONE B.V.

Holder · RCD owner

UNION INDUSTRIES S.P.A.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via 2 Giugno 1946, 80, 13866 Masserano, Italia

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCD

Tessuti non tessuti (non-woven fabrics), published 24 January 2006

RCD No 00 419 247-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin 2006/040 · disclosed 2006-01-24

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6Article 7(1)Article 24(2)

Argument summary

  • The holder (appellant) argued that the contested RCD has individual character because the informed user is a professional marketing specialist who notices fine differences, the hexagonal pattern represents a limited range of choices, and the number and size of bonding dots produce a different overall impression.
  • The invalidity applicant (respondent) relied on its submissions before the Invalidity Division, noting the holder merely repeated first-instance arguments.
  • The Board confirmed that the informed user is the general consumer of hygiene articles, not a professional designer; designer freedom is broad; the claimed crowding of the prior art was not proved by any documentary evidence (only web links were cited).
  • Both designs consist of repeating hexagons formed by dots, producing virtually the same overall impression; the differences (3 vs 4 dots per hexagon side, slightly different dot spacing) are barely perceptible.
  • Appeal dismissed; contested RCD lacks individual character over the prior RCD No 419 247-0001.

Deciding panel

  • ChairTh. M. Margellos
  • RapporteurC. Negro
  • MemberM. Bra
  • Registrarp.o. R. Vidal

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
itItalianoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗