DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005792553-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-10-20

R2984/2019-3

Contested design: 005792553-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal upheld (reversal)

The contested decision is annulled, the case is remitted to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution, and each party bears its own appeal costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Annuls the contested decision; 2. Remits the case to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution; 3. Orders that each party bear its own costs and fees in the appeal proceedings.

CostsEach party bears its own costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

SERASAR GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Pleistalstraße 228a, 53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

Hongde Xianvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

No. 7, 24 Street, Weizai Luoge Village, Nanzhuang, Chancheng District, Guangdong, Foshan, People's Republic of China

Represented by

A.BRE.MAR. S.R.L.

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosure

bracelet clasp offered for sale on Amazon.de under the SERASAR mark

ASIN B07D6XZ1YQ · Amazon.de · disclosed 2018-05-22

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

another bracelet clasp relied on for the first time on appeal

ASIN B018TLUMPO · Amazon.de · disclosed 2015-12-02

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 7(1)Article 63(2)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that the contested jewellery-lock design copied the clasp of bracelets it had been selling on Amazon.de and that the earlier clasp had been publicly available before the filing date.
  • The design holder did not file any observations in reply.
  • The Board agreed that the original first-instance screenshots were insufficient, but admitted supplementary Amazon evidence on appeal, found the product with ASIN B07D6XZ1YQ had been offered on Amazon.de since 22 May 2018, and therefore proved prior disclosure of that clasp. It disregarded the distinct ASIN B018TLUMPO as an inadmissible extension of the subject matter.
  • Because disclosure was established but the substance of novelty and individual character had not yet been examined in full, the Board annulled the decision and remitted the case; each party bears its own appeal costs.

Deciding panel

  • ChairTh. M. Margellos
  • RapporteurC. Negro
  • MemberM. Bra
  • 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 ↗