← Back to search
Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-03-15
R2380/2020-3
Contested design: 004707958-0001
CDRAppellant: holder
Outcome
Appeal inadmissible
The appeal is deemed not to have been filed and the appeal fee is to be refunded.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
1. Considerar el recurso como no presentado; 2. Ordenar la devolución de la tasa de recurso.
CostsNo costs order
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Acieries et Laminoirs de Rivesvia PDF extraction
France (FR)
52 Route de Colombe, F-38140 Rives, Francia
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Indusmetal Torresvia PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Camino de las Pozas nº6, 14960 Rute, España
Represented by
D. Francisco José Torres Campos
Legal grounds invoked
Article 57Article 35(1)Article 35(3)
Argument summary
- ›The design holder filed an appeal against the Invalidity Division's decision declaring the contested fencing-post design invalid, but both the notice of appeal and the appeal-fee payment were made after expiry of the two-month time limit.
- ›In response to registry deficiency notices, the holder argued that a catastrophic computer failure prevented its representative from accessing the User Area and learning of the contested decision in time.
- ›The Board held that notification was legally effected five days after deposit in the representative's electronic mailbox, that the holder had not filed any restitutio in integrum request, and that the alleged technical problems could not cure the late filing and late fee payment in this appeal.
- ›The appeal was deemed not to have been filed and the appeal fee had to be returned; no costs order was made.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberH. Salmi
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0934/2021-3 | 2022-05-24 | Appeal deemed not filed | Art 35(3) | — | 5 |
| R0936/2021-3 | 2022-05-24 | Appeal deemed not filed | Art 35(3) | — | 5 |
| R0935/2021-3 | 2022-05-24 | Appeal deemed not filed | Art 35(3) | — | 5 |
| R0512/2019-3 | 2019-06-20 | Appeal deemed not filed | Art 35(3) | — | 5 |
| R0511/2019-3 | 2019-06-06 | Appeal deemed not filed | Art 35(3) | — | 5 |
| R1129/2024-3 | 2024-09-06 | Appeal deemed not filed | Art 35(3) | — | 3 |
| R1129/2024-3 | 2024-09-06 | Appeal deemed not filed | Art 35(3) | — | 3 |
| R1719/2020-3 | 2020-11-19 | Appeal deemed not filed | Art 35(3) | — | 3 |