DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005658507-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-04-29

R0672/2021-3

Contested design: 005658507-0001

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Inhaberin trägt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerdeverfahrens.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Out of the blue KGvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Beim neuen Damm 28, 28865 Lilienthal, Deutschland

Holder · RCD owner

MYDO GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Osterfeldstraße 6, 22529 Hamburg, Deutschland

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosureD1

Green Maneki-neko figurine shown in a Diminuto Cielo Facebook post

facebook.com/diminutocieloshop/photos · Facebook · disclosed 2014-11-05

Web disclosureD2

Yellow Maneki-neko figurine among multiple colour variants

Diminuto Cielo Facebook post · Facebook · disclosed 2015-02-28

Web disclosureD3

Maneki-neko figurine shown on Instagram

Diminuto Cielo Instagram post · Instagram · disclosed 2015-03-10

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)

Argument summary

  • The design holder argued that the earlier social-media disclosures of beckoning-cat figurines were not sufficiently established, lacked full views, and differed in colour and surface from the contested design.
  • The invalidity applicant maintained that the Diminuto Cielo Facebook and Instagram posts proved prior disclosure and that at least the yellow cat design D2 created the same overall impression as the contested RCD.
  • The Board held that D2 had been made available to the public before the filing date and that the minor differences in finish, colour nuances and base details did not change the nearly identical overall impression of the figurines.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the invalidation for lack of individual character was upheld.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurE. Fink
  • MemberA. Pohlmann
  • Registrarp.o. M. Chaleva

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0499/2023-32024-03-04Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R2422/2022-32024-01-30Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R0856/2022-32023-06-30Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R1562/2022-32023-05-31Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R1103/2022-32023-02-15Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R0676/2021-32022-11-14Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R0678/2021-32022-11-14Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R0679/2021-32022-11-14Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5