Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-05-20
R0763/2019-3
Contested design: 000690482-0003
Outcome
The contested first-instance decision is set aside and the Community design is declared invalid; the holder bears all costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die angefochtene Entscheidung wird aufgehoben und das Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster für nichtig erklärt. 2. Die Inhaberin trägt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerdeverfahrens.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Micromic S.r.l.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Silvio Pellico 19/9a, 00040 Pomezia RM, Italien
Represented by
Gianluca Morretta
Holder · RCD owner
Vorwerk & Co. Interholding GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Mühlenweg 17-37, 42275 Wuppertal, Deutschland
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant (appellant) argued that the brush replacement plate (Bürstenwechselplatte) is a component part of the complex product 'vacuum cleaner' and is not visible during normal use (vacuuming the floor), as demonstrated by video evidence; it further argued all appearance features are solely dictated by technical function under Article 8(1) and (2) GGV.
- ›The design holder argued the brush plate is an accessory/consumable (not a structural component), is visible during multiple stages of normal use (vacuuming walls, storage on wall mount, inspection), and its appearance was chosen for aesthetic reasons giving it a futuristic look.
- ›The Board found that a vacuum cleaner is a complex product and the brush plate is a component part thereof; normal use of a vacuum cleaner is restricted to floor cleaning by pushing the device; when used for floor cleaning the brush plate is not visible to the user.
- ›Since the brush plate is not visible during normal use under Article 4(2)(a) GGV, protection cannot attach; examination of Articles 8(1) and (2) was unnecessary.
- ›Appeal upheld: the contested RCD is declared invalid under Article 25(1)(b) read with Article 4(2) GGV; the holder bears all costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurA. Szanyi Felkl
- MemberE. Fink
- Registrarp.o. M. Chaleva
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0905/2018-3 | 2020-10-29 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 7 |
| R0907/2018-3 | 2020-10-29 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 7 |
| R0906/2018-3 | 2020-05-28 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 7 |
| R0904/2018-3 | 2020-05-28 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 7 |
| R0914/2018-3 | 2020-10-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 6 |
| R0912/2018-3 | 2020-10-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 6 |
| R0913/2018-3 | 2020-10-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 6 |
| R0911/2018-3 | 2020-05-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 6 |