Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-01-19

R2276/2019-3

Contested design: 003148113-0005

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal upheld (reversal)

The appeal is upheld, the contested decision is annulled, and the invalidity applicant must bear the holder’s costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text(it)

1. Il ricorso è accolto; 2. La decisione impugnata è annullata; 3. La richiedente la nullità dovrà sopportare le spese sostenute dalla titolare nei procedimenti di nullità e ricorso.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

TVS S.p.A.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Galileo Galilei, 2, 61033 Fermignano (PU), Italia

Represented by

Feltrinelli & Brogi

Holder · RCD owner

Pensofal International S.p.A.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Francesco Caracciolo, 15, 80122 Napoli, Italia

Represented by

Jacobacci & Partners S.p.A.

Prior art cited (8)

Registered RCDD1

Earlier registered Community design for the bottom of a cooking container

Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2009-09-21

PatentD2

International patent application showing a cooking-container bottom

PCT/FR93/00692 / WO94/01030 · WIPO publication · disclosed 1994-01-20

National designD3

United States design for a cooking-container bottom / pan base

D663,582S · United States design patent publication · disclosed 2012-07-17

PatentD4

Italian invention patent application concerning a cooking-container bottom

VR2014A000026 / 1421983 · Italian patent grant publication · disclosed 2015-08-06

Prior useD5⚠ rejected as evidence

“Suprema Pensofal” pan, 2014

disclosed 2014-01-01

Prior useD6⚠ rejected as evidence

“Suprema Pensofal” pan, 2014

disclosed 2014-01-01

Prior useD7⚠ rejected as evidence

Jiangsu Jinzun Industrial Co. pan, 2012

disclosed 2012-01-01

Prior useD8⚠ rejected as evidence

“Ozeri” pan, 2013

disclosed 2013-01-01

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6Article 7(1)

Argument summary

›TVS sought invalidity of Pensofal’s registered design for cooking-container bottoms, arguing lack of novelty and individual character mainly over earlier design D1 and additionally invoking D2-D4.
›Pensofal argued D1 created a different overall impression because its larger holes formed concentric rows and a star-like arrangement; it also said D2-D4 were even less relevant.
›The Board found the contested design produced a different overall impression from D1-D4, and therefore retained novelty and individual character; it also refused to admit late-filed prior art D5-D8.
›The appeal by the design holder succeeded, the invalidity decision was annulled, and the invalidity applicant was ordered to bear costs.

Deciding panel

ChairTh. M. Margellos
RapporteurC. Negro
MemberM. Bra
RegistrarR. Vidal

Decision files

Language	Type	Source link
enEnglish (en)	machine translated	Download original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)	machine translated	Download original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)	machine translated	Download original from EUIPO ↗
itItalian	original	Download original from EUIPO ↗