Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-04-12
R0685/2021-3
Contested design: 003846518-0005
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. 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
Lafat komerc d.o.o.via PDF extraction
BA
Industrijska zona bb, Kalesija 75260, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
SC BIODOME EUROPE SRLvia PDF extraction
Romania (RO)
Str. Dr. Victor Babes 36, 500073 Brasov, Romania
Represented by
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested RCD depicted an internal component of a pellet boiler that was not visible during normal use and therefore failed the visibility requirements for component-part protection.
- ›The design holder replied that part of the internal structure was visible through the boiler's glass window during operation and that other views became visible when the boiler was opened for cleaning.
- ›The Board held that cleaning forms part of maintenance, not normal use, but it agreed with the first instance that at least some features of the contested component were visible through the front window during operation and that the applicant had not challenged the visible features on novelty or individual-character grounds.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the rejection of the invalidity application was confirmed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberS. Rizzo
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0489/2022-3 | 2023-12-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 7 |
| R0878/2022-3 | 2023-02-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 7 |
| R1698/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 7 |
| R1696/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 7 |
| R1694/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 7 |
| R1654/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 7 |
| R1699/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 7 |
| R1693/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 7 |