Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-01-10
R0574/2022-3
Contested design: 007657556-0001
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
FHS International GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
An der Eickesmühle 34, 41238 Mönchengladbach, Germany
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
WESTERN REGION ENTERPRISES XIAMEN LIMITEDvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
Room 602, No. 64 YUNDANG ROAD, SIMING DIST., XIAMEN, FUJIAN, People’s Republic of China
Prior art cited (7)
collapsible outdoor lighted Christmas tree ensemble
United States patent No 6 062 701 · United States patent publication · disclosed 2000-05-16
assembly of a mast and dressing device and a dressing device for such an assembly and a method for dressing a mast
European Patent application No 1 710 772 A1 · European patent application publication · disclosed 2006-10-11
illumination Assembly for Providing a Christmas Tree Impression
Patent application No WO 2014/189365 A1 · WIPO patent application publication · disclosed 2014-11-27
pre-lit Metal Frame Christmas Tree
United States patent No 10 092 124 B1 · United States patent publication · disclosed 2018-10-09
Fairybell Wall 400CM-240LED Warm Weiss
ASIN B07FZZZDLC · amazon.de · disclosed 2018-07-29
Fairybell 3D outdoor tree
worm.co.uk
design publicly displayed at Messe Christmas World 2020 in Frankfurt
Messe Christmas World 2020, Frankfurt · disclosed 2020-01-25
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the views were contradictory, the priority claim failed, and the Christmas-tree design lacked novelty and individual character over prior designs D1 to D7.
- ›The design holder replied that the different views consistently represented one design and that the cited prior art still produced different overall impressions.
- ›The Board held that the contested design met the definition of a design and remained novel and individually distinctive over the cited earlier designs, including D5.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against the invalidity applicant.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- MemberH. Salmi
- MemberM. Bra
- RegistrarE. Apaolaza
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0573/2022-3 | 2023-01-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | — | 9 |
| R1214/2023-3 | 2024-02-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1455/2022-3 | 2023-11-06 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0618/2021-3 | 2022-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0619/2021-3 | 2022-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2060/2019-3 | 2022-02-01 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | — | 7 |
| R1635/2019-3 | 2020-10-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2349/2019-3 | 2020-09-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |