Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-12-08
R0087/2021-3
Contested design: 006781761-0001
Outcome
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 incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
PROKAPITAL MANAGEMENT, SIAvia PDF extraction
LV
Kārļa Ulmaņa gatve 2a, Riga, LV-1004, Latvia
Represented by
Olga Vahatova
Holder · RCD owner
Ningbo Yinzhou Harbour Imp & Exp Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
No. 16 Panlong Road, Five Townships, Yinzhou District, Ningbo City, People’s Republic of China
Prior art cited (2)
massage appliances
RCD No 1 552 605-0001 · Office design database / Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2009-07-27
RCD No 5 242 559-0001 · Office design database · disclosed 2018-04-26
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested acupressure-mat design lacked individual character in light of two earlier registered Community designs and also invoked Latvian copyright law.
- ›The holder argued that the relevant features were mainly technical, that the prior art was crowded, and that the spikes and inner element of the contested design differed significantly from the cited designs.
- ›The Board took the late submissions into account and found that the first cited prior design, RCD No 1 552 605-0001, was sufficient to destroy individual character because the shared conical spikes arranged in concentric circles dominated the overall impression.
- ›Since the first prior design already led to the success of the invalidity application, the appeal was dismissed without needing to examine the remaining prior design or copyright ground.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurM. Bra
- MemberS. Rizzo
- RegistrarR. Vidal
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0827/2024-3 | 2025-03-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2) | — | 5 |
| R1063/2023-3 | 2024-11-11 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2) | — | 5 |
| R1488/2022-3 | 2023-04-24 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2) | — | 5 |
| R1489/2022-3 | 2023-04-24 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2) | — | 5 |
| R0055/2022-3 | 2022-10-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2) | — | 5 |
| R2427/2023-3 | 2024-07-31 | Decision partially annulled | Art 63(2) | — | 4 |
| R2443/2020-3 | 2023-01-17 | Decision annulled | Art 63(2) | — | 4 |
| R0093/2022-3 | 2022-10-25 | Decision annulled | Art 63(2) | — | 4 |