Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-06-15
R1734/2019-3
Contested design: 004173987-0004
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, 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)
BozArc carport/awning design depicted in flyer distributed with magazine habiter.lu, shown at exhibitions in Kirchberg Luxembourg (10–18 October 2015) and Libramont Belgium (23–26 October 2015)
habiter.lu magazine flyer / BozArc website www.bozarc.be · disclosed 2015-10-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Design holder (BoZarc) appealed the Invalidity Division's decision invalidating RCD 4173987-0004 (modular shelter/carport) for lack of individual character over its own earlier carport design publicly disclosed in October 2015 via a trade magazine flyer.
- ›On appeal, BoZarc did not dispute the prior disclosure but argued the contested RCD differed in overall impression due to rectangular (vs. round) support arches, guide-track pivot points, and girders resting on top (vs. in cut-outs) of the support arches.
- ›The invalidity applicant (IPARLUX) argued these differences were imperceptible in the registered views and that the designs shared the same overall structure, proportions, curved roof, and rain gutters.
- ›The Board found the designer's degree of freedom was broad; the differences (arch cross-section, pivot details, girder placement) were either invisible in normal use or minor options within wide designer latitude, insufficient to produce a different overall impression; appeal dismissed.
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 |
| R1731/2019-3 | 2020-05-21 | 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 |