DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005638939-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-09-30

R2489/2020-3

Contested design: 005638939-0001

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

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

Show verbatim operative text

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

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Graça & Mendes, Lda.via PDF extraction

Portugal (PT)

Lugar de Carreiro, Palmeira, 4700 Braga, Portugal

Represented by

Vera Alves

Holder · RCD owner

Jacinto João Faria Oliveiravia PDF extraction

Portugal (PT)

Rua St. António da Fonte, nº 1, 4740-357 Fão, Portugal

Represented by

André Pereira Branco

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCD

parasols, umbrella-sunshades, garden or beach parasols

Community design registration No 4 002 459-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-05-22

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that the contested parasol RCD lacked novelty and individual character in light of its earlier parasol design and that the holder, a former employee, was marketing identical parasols.
  • The holder replied that his parasols had been publicly available earlier and that differences in the canopy, ribs and fittings produced a different overall impression.
  • The Board found that the earlier registered parasol design had been disclosed and that the minor differences identified by the holder did not outweigh the common overall structure of the canopy and supporting frame.
  • The prior design destroyed the individual character of the contested RCD, so the appeal was dismissed.

Deciding panel

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)5
R0827/2024-32025-03-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1336/2024-32025-03-03Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0797/2024-32025-01-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1123/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1125/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1124/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1015/2024-32024-11-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5