DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002724369-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-05-10

R0440/2020-3

Contested design: 002724369-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the design holder’s costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Consortium Menager Parisienvia PDF extraction

France (FR)

12 rue des Gravilliers, 75003 Paris, France

Represented by

Mark & Law

Holder · RCD owner

SNV Creations Inc.via PDF extraction

CA

1600 d'Iberville, St. Bruno J3V 4L7, Canada

Represented by

Marks & Clerk LLP

Prior art cited (3)

Registered RCDD1

scissors

Community design No 1 841 669-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-04-05

PatentD2

scissors

US D 484,378 S · USPTO · disclosed 2003-12-30

PatentD3

shellfish cutting and eating utensils

US 6,503,137 B2 · USPTO · disclosed 2003-01-07

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • On appeal, the invalidity applicant challenged only the rejection of its Article 8(1) claim, arguing that all relevant features of the shellfish scissors were solely dictated by technical function.
  • The design holder argued that the layout and combination of the handles, crushing section, and blades were not purely functional and left room for design choice.
  • The Board found that some features were technically driven, but the applicant had not shown that all features of appearance were chosen solely for technical reasons as Article 8(1) requires.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity applicant was ordered to bear costs.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurC. Negro
  • MemberC. Bartos
  • Registrarp.o. R. Vidal

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
R0494/2023-32024-03-19Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R0862/2023-32024-02-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R0861/2023-32024-02-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R2289/2022-32023-12-13Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R2068/2019-32023-06-12Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R0878/2022-32023-02-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R0485/2021-32022-09-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R1696/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7