Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-09-19
R0711/2022-3
Contested design: 008192611-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs incurred by the design holder 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
Piffany Copenhagen ApSvia PDF extraction
Denmark (DK)
Bymosevej 17, 3200 Helsinge, Denmark
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Deluxe Holding ApSvia PDF extraction
Denmark (DK)
Niels Bohrs Vej 12 A th., 6000 Kolding, Denmark
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
artificial LED taper candle allegedly shown at trade fairs and later on Instagram
UYUNI taper candle · Nordstil fair / Paris Nord Villepinte fair / Instagram post · disclosed 2019-01-12
traditional Ester & Erik candle shown in a Wayback Machine screenshot
www.ester-erik.dk Wayback capture · Wayback Machine capture of Ester & Erik website · disclosed 2016-04-05
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the electric-candle design lacked individual character over its own UYUNI taper candle and over a traditional Ester & Erik candle allegedly disclosed before the filing date.
- ›The design holder replied that the prior disclosures were inadequately proven and, in any event, differed in important visual features such as the body proportions, top depression and artificial flame configuration.
- ›The Board held that the Ester & Erik screenshot was too small and imprecise to establish a usable prior design and that even assuming the UYUNI design had been sufficiently disclosed, the conflicting candles produced different overall impressions.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the rejection of the invalidity application was confirmed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberM. Bra
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0116/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0115/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2453/2023-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0952/2021-3 | 2024-09-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2140/2023-3 | 2024-08-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2585/2023-3 | 2024-08-06 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1745/2023-3 | 2024-06-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |