DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001419063-0001

Restitutio in integrum · 2021-03-17

R2134/2020-3

Contested design: 001419063-0001

CDRRCD lapsed at decision

Outcome

Restitutio refused

The contested decision is annulled, but the request for restitutio in integrum is rejected on the merits.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Annuls the contested decision; 2. Rejects the request for restitutio in integrum.

CostsNo costs order

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Cubitts KX Limitedvia PDF extraction

United Kingdom (GB)

97 Caledonian Road, London N1 9BT, United Kingdom

Represented by

Thomas Grimm

Holder · RCD owner

No opposing holder — Restitutio in integrum.

Legal grounds invoked

Article 67(1)Article 67(2)Article 67(3)Article 56Article 57Article 63

Argument summary

  • The holder appealed the Register's finding that its request for restitutio in integrum after non-renewal of the RCD was deemed not to have been filed out of time, arguing that the true cause of non-compliance was only discovered when the holder queried a lapse email on 29 May 2020.
  • There was no opposing private party; the dispute concerned whether the request was timely and whether the representative's internal renewal and address-control system satisfied the 'all due care' standard.
  • The Board agreed that the request had been filed within two months of removal of the true obstacle and therefore annulled the procedural 'deemed not filed' decision, but it found the representative's system lacked an adequate control mechanism because the client address update was not properly implemented and no effective verification step caught the resulting lapse.
  • The restitutio request was rejected on the merits; the lapsed RCD was not restored.

Deciding panel

  • ChairTh. M. Margellos
  • RapporteurE. Fink
  • MemberA. Szanyi Felkl
  • Registrarp.o. APAOLAZA ALM,Eva

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0630/2023-32023-12-08Decision confirmedArt 67(2)4
R0630/2023-32023-12-08Decision confirmedArt 67(2)4
R0630/2023-32023-12-08Decision confirmedArt 67(2)4
R0630/2023-32023-12-08Decision confirmedArt 67(2)4
R0630/2023-32023-12-08Decision confirmedArt 67(2)4
R0630/2023-32023-12-08Decision confirmedArt 67(2)4
R0630/2023-32023-12-08Decision confirmedArt 67(2)4
R0630/2023-32023-12-08Decision confirmedArt 67(2)4