DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007373626-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-05-18

R2019/2020-3

Contested design: 007373626-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The contested decision is annulled only as regards the fixing of costs, the appeal is otherwise dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder’s costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Annuls the contested decision with regard to the fixing of costs; 2. Dismisses the appeal for the remainder; 3. 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

Cutelarias Cristema, LDA.via PDF extraction

Portugal (PT)

Rua dos Lameiros, nº 577 e 605, 4805-619 Guimarães, Portugal

Represented by

Joana Jorge Cerqueira

Holder · RCD owner

Francisco do Carmo Silva Motavia PDF extraction

Portugal (PT)

Lugar do Largatal - Edifício do Montinho, 33, 2º dto., Caldas das Taipas, 4800-370 Guimarães, Portugal

Represented by

Vera Alves

Prior art cited (1)

Prior use⚠ rejected as evidence

meat chopping hatchet VA-6972 / 001203476

Invoices No 31/2014A, 24/2015, 16/2016 and No 3856; supporting declarations · Portuguese invoices and declarations submitted by the invalidity applicant · disclosed 2014-01-01

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that invoices, declarations, and related materials proved prior disclosure of a meat-chopping hatchet identical to the contested RCD before its filing date.
  • The design holder filed no observations on appeal.
  • The Board found the evidence insufficient to prove disclosure of a prior design under Article 7 CDR, because the declarations and images did not reliably establish the same design or a pre-filing public disclosure.
  • The appeal was dismissed on the merits, although the Board annulled the first-instance fixing of costs because the design holder had never requested it.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurC. Negro
  • MemberE. Fink
  • 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
R0181/2025-32025-05-27Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)4
R0827/2024-32025-03-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)4
R1336/2024-32025-03-03Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)4
R0797/2024-32025-01-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)4
R1125/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)4
R1123/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)4
R1124/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)4
R1015/2024-32024-11-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)4