Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-01-25
R1733/2019-3
Contested design: 004173987-0003
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 free-standing shelter/awning design disclosed in a BozArc flyer distributed with the magazine habiter.lu and shown at an exhibition in Libramont, Belgium
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 the configuration of girders, guide track, and other structural details.
- ›The invalidity applicant relied on the BozArc flyer distributed with habiter.lu and the October 2015 public exhibition in Libramont, Belgium, contending the earlier awning created the same overall impression.
- ›The Board found the earlier design had been validly disclosed before filing, designer freedom was broad, and the similarities in the free-standing shelter structure, curved roof, pivots, posts, and gutters outweighed 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 |