Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-02-18
R0827/2020-3
Contested design: 002385385-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Cavius ApSvia PDF extraction
Denmark (DK)
Julsøvej 16, 8600 Silkeborg, Denmark
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Shenzhen Fledec Technology Limitedvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
105, Building B, Forsafe Science & Technology Mansion, No.13, Gaoxin South Rd.1, Hi-tech Industry Park, Nanshan Dist., Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
smoke alarms (part of -)
RCD No 1 951 450-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-12-14
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing that the contested smoke-alarm RCD conflicted with its earlier registered design under Article 25(1)(d) CDR and that the identified differences were too minor to alter the overall impression.
- ›The design holder filed no observations in reply either at first instance or on appeal.
- ›The Board held that Article 25(1)(d) CDR could not be used on the facts pleaded because that provision does not cover the kind of earlier design relied on here in the manner advanced; in any event, the Board agreed that the flared bottom and sharper top edge gave the contested design a different overall shape and contour.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the invalidity application remained unsuccessful and the invalidity applicant was ordered to bear costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberE. Fink
- Registrarp.o. APAOLAZA ALM,Eva
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1787/2021-3 | 2022-06-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(d) | — | 5 |
| R2282/2020-3 | 2022-05-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(d) | — | 5 |
| R2283/2020-3 | 2022-05-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(d) | — | 5 |
| R2285/2020-3 | 2022-05-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(d) | — | 5 |
| R2286/2020-3 | 2022-05-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(d) | — | 5 |
| R2284/2020-3 | 2022-05-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(d) | — | 5 |
| R2281/2020-3 | 2021-11-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(d) | — | 5 |
| R2114/2019-3 | 2020-09-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(d) | — | 5 |