Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-01-25
R1732/2019-3
Contested design: 004173987-0002
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)
Earlier carport/awning design disclosed in a BozArc flyer distributed with the magazine habiter.lu and shown at an exhibition in Kirchberg, Luxembourg
habiter.lu magazine flyer / exhibition · disclosed 2015-10-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed the invalidity decision, arguing its modular-shelter design differed from the earlier BozArc flyer disclosure in features such as the roof support structure, post placement, and other construction details.
- ›The invalidity applicant relied on the BozArc flyer distributed with habiter.lu and the October 2015 public exhibition in Kirchberg, Luxembourg, contending the earlier awning created the same overall impression.
- ›The Board found the earlier design had been validly disclosed before filing, the designer’s freedom for transportable buildings was broad, and the shared overall structure and curved roof dominated over the minor differences.
- ›The contested RCD lacked individual character over the earlier design, so the appeal was dismissed and the holder bore costs.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0181/2025-3 | 2025-05-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0827/2024-3 | 2025-03-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1336/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0797/2024-3 | 2025-01-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1123/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1125/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1124/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1015/2024-3 | 2024-11-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |