Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-07-01
R1585/2021-3
Contested design: 005300506-0005
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant’s costs and fees in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
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
Cavius ApS
Denmark (DK)
Julsøvej 16, 8600 Silkeborg, Denmark
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Shenzhen Heiman Technology Co., Ltd.
China (CN)
No.84 Fuqian Road, Yuexingwei Community, Guanlan, Longhua New District, Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China
Prior art cited (1)
smoke detector / smoke alarm
RCD No 3 528 645-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-12-22
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder argued that smoke-alarm design freedom was constrained by technical and regulatory requirements and that the contested design’s cleaner, more minimal appearance differed overall.
- ›The invalidity applicant responded that only limited functional constraints existed and that the prior and contested smoke alarms shared the same key proportions, structure, and placement of features.
- ›The Board held that the earlier RCD had clearly been disclosed and that smoke-alarm designers retained considerable freedom over the product’s outer appearance.
- ›Because the coinciding cylindrical base, body, recessed smoke chamber, and top dominated the comparison, the Board confirmed the lack of individual character.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberE. Fink
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1336/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1015/2024-3 | 2024-11-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1719/2023-3 | 2024-06-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1747/2022-3 | 2024-01-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0367/2022-3 | 2023-06-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2024/2021-3 | 2022-07-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2025/2021-3 | 2022-07-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2026/2021-3 | 2022-07-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |