DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006929840-0010

Other appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-06-15

R0433/2020-3

Contested design: 006929840-0010

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal upheld (reversal)

The Board annuls the examiner's decision, remits the case to the Operations Department for further prosecution, and orders reimbursement of the appeal fee.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Annuls the contested decision; 2. Remits the case to the Operations Department for further prosecution; 3. Orders that the appeal fee be reimbursed.

CostsNot specified

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Unclebus Textile Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

Room 1207, Floor 11, No. 12 Building, No. 3 Yard HuangChangNanLi, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100121, People's Republic of China

Represented by

FAIRFIELD IP LIMITED

Holder · RCD owner

No opposing holder — Other appeal · Board of Appeal.

Legal grounds invoked

Article 36(1)Article 38Article 41Article 45(2)(a)Article 46(3)

Argument summary

  • Applicant (Unclebus Textile) appealed an examiner's decision that changed the filing date of RCDs 6929840-0001 to 0010 from 26 September 2019 to 29 October 2019, resulting in loss of priority rights for designs 0001–0007.
  • The applicant argued the original filing date should be maintained because the deficiency (shoe pad in fifth view) was cured by a timely proposal to delete those views within the prescribed period under Article 46(3) CDR.
  • The Board found the applicant's 20 November 2019 declaration to delete the fifth view was a clear, unambiguous correction within the prescribed period; the examiner erred by ignoring it and changing the filing date.
  • The Board further found the examiner's failure to give the deletion option constituted a substantial procedural violation justifying fee reimbursement; filing date restored to 26 September 2019.

Deciding panel

  • ChairTh. M. Margellos
  • RapporteurC. Rusconi
  • MemberH. Salmi
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0433/2020-32020-06-15Decision annulledArt 38(1), Art 36(1)(c)7
R0433/2020-32020-06-15Decision annulledArt 38(1), Art 36(1)(c)7
R0433/2020-32020-06-15Decision annulledArt 38(1), Art 36(1)(c)7
R0433/2020-32020-06-15Decision annulledArt 38(1), Art 36(1)(c)7
R0433/2020-32020-06-15Decision annulledArt 38(1), Art 36(1)(c)7
R0433/2020-32020-06-15Decision annulledArt 38(1), Art 36(1)(c)7
R0433/2020-32020-06-15Decision annulledArt 38(1), Art 36(1)(c)7
R0433/2020-32020-06-15Decision annulledArt 38(1), Art 36(1)(c)7