DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003521053-0013

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-01-18

R2049/2019-3

Contested design: 003521053-0013

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The contested decision is annulled, the RCD is declared invalid, and the design holder must pay EUR 2,050 in costs and fees to the invalidity applicant.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Annuls the contested decision and declares the Community design No 3 521 053-0013 invalid; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings; 3. Fixes the costs to be paid by the design holder to the invalidity applicant for the invalidity and appeal proceedings at EUR 2 050.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €2,050

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

CALITEX S.A.via PDF extraction

France (FR)

B.P. 59405, 59405 Cambrai Cedex, France

Represented by

David Lefranc

Holder · RCD owner

VAN DER HAEGEN & NECKEBROECK, bvbavia PDF extraction

Belgium (BE)

Pamelstraat Oost 450, 9400 Ninove, Belgium

Represented by

Christian Defauw

Prior art cited (1)

CatalogAnnex 17

tablecloth ornamentation with repeated decorative circles on polka-dot background

TB 1636 / Graphisme · 2014-2015 MP catalogue

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5Article 7(1)Article 70(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant appealed the rejection of its novelty attack on a tablecloth design and relied on a 2014-2015 supplier catalogue plus later commercial emails and orders for the same pattern marketed as 'Graphisme'.
  • The design holder argued that the catalogue and later marketing acts either lacked sufficient proof or fell within the Article 7(2) grace-period derogation as unauthorised disclosures of its own design.
  • The Board found that the 2014-2015 catalogue and later promotional emails together proved pre-filing disclosure and that the grace period did not help because the 2014 catalogue predated the protected 12-month window.
  • The compared designs were identical in their repeated circle arrangement and decorative elements, so the RCD lacked novelty and was declared invalid.

Deciding panel

  • ChairTh. M. Margellos
  • RapporteurC. Bartos
  • MemberE. Fink
  • 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
R2504/2022-32023-06-28Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R2030/2022-32023-06-07Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R2415/2018-32023-03-01Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R2416/2018-32023-03-01Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R2417/2018-32023-03-01Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R2443/2020-32023-01-17Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R0068/2022-32023-01-09Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R0092/2022-32022-10-25Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5