Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-03-17
R1267/2020-3
Contested design: 005948007-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's fees and costs, fixed at EUR 1,250.
Show verbatim operative text
Dismisses the appeal; Orders the design holder to bear the fees and costs incurred by the invalidity applicant; Fixes the amount of fees and costs to be paid by the design holder to the invalidity applicant with respect to the invalidity and appeal proceedings at EUR 1 250.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €1,250
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
HRT vGmbHvia PDF extraction
LU
50 Rue de Muehlenbach, 2168 Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
BALTAG RADU Impresa Individualevia PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
A. Pulega 3, 40133 Bologna, Italy
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
mouthguard / occlusal splint sold as 'dentz professional'
Amazon.de ASIN B07K1G4NXB · Amazon.de · disclosed 2018-10-29
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed the invalidation of its dental-instrument design, arguing that the Amazon evidence was unreliable, that its own earlier Amazon.it publication triggered the Article 7(2) grace period, and that the contested design differed from the cited mouthguard image.
- ›The invalidity applicant maintained that the Amazon.de offer by third party 'dentz' was reliable evidence of disclosure before the filing date and that the conflicting designs were identical or at least indistinguishable.
- ›The Board found the Amazon.de printout sufficiently reliable, rejected the grace-period defence because the third-party disclosure was not shown to result from the holder's own disclosure, and held that the front perspective of the prior design and the contested RCD disclosed the same features so novelty was destroyed.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the RCD remained invalid and EUR 1,250 in fees and costs were fixed against the design holder.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- 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 |