Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-05-21
R1731/2019-3
Contested design: 004173987-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and 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
IPARLUX S.à.r.l.via PDF extraction
LU
4A, rue de l'ouest, L-2273 Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
BoZarc besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkhevia PDF extraction
Belgium (BE)
Boomsesteenweg 41 bus2, 2630 Aartselaar, Belgium
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
Earlier design of a carport/awning disclosed in a BozArc flyer distributed with the magazine habiter.lu, October 2015, shown at exhibitions in Kirchberg (Luxembourg) and Libramont (Belgium) in October 2015
habiter.lu magazine flyer / exhibition · disclosed 2015-10-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder (appellant) argued the contested RCD is the new version of its awning with structural differences (rectangular vs round cross-section of support arches, guide tracks at pivot points, girders resting on top of arches vs cut-outs), producing a different overall impression from the earlier design.
- ›The invalidity applicant argued the design holder compared photographs rather than the RCD as registered; the alleged differences in arches, pivot tracks and girder placement are not clearly visible in the global registered views and are immaterial details.
- ›The Board found that the prior design (design holder's own earlier product shown at exhibitions in October 2015, before the August 2017 filing date) was properly disclosed; designer freedom for awnings/carports is high.
- ›Comparing the RCD as registered with the earlier design, the Board identified key differences (girder placement, arch cross-section shape, presence of guide track, number of support posts) but found these insufficient to produce a different overall impression given the high degree of designer freedom and the dominance of shared features (curved roof, six equidistant girders, gutters along long edges, rounded posts with overhang).
- ›Appeal dismissed: the contested RCD lacks individual character over the earlier carport design.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberE. Fink
- 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 |
| R0616/2019-3 | 2020-04-08 | 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 |