DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006277935-0005

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-01-17

R2443/2020-3

Contested design: 006277935-0005

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The appeal is upheld, the contested decision is annulled, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must bear the invalidity applicant's costs.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Estimar el recurso; 2. Anular la resolución recurrida; 3. Declarar nulo el DMC; 4. Ordenar que la titular sufrague las costas de la solicitante de nulidad.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

COLOM BAKERY EQUIPMENT, S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Avenida Enrique Gimeno, 100, 12006 Castellón, España

Represented by

Ana Otero Iglesias

Holder · RCD owner

CIBERNÉTICA PARA LA PANIFICACIÓN, S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Camino Els Lladres, 4 y 6, 12550 Almassora (Castellón), España

Represented by

ARCADE & ASOCIADOS

Prior art cited (3)

PublicationD1

Earlier CIBERPAN "tren de trabajo con cámara estática" bread-making machine

Spanish trade magazines

Web disclosureD2

Earlier bread-making machine shown in YouTube footage

YouTube videos recorded in notarial act · YouTube

CatalogD3

Earlier static resting chamber from automatic work group model 93

FORMEX catalogue · FORMEX catalogue attached to commercial email · disclosed 2016-02-03

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6Article 7

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant appealed the rejection of its nullity action and argued that several earlier bread-making machine designs, especially D3, had long been marketed and produced the same overall impression as the contested RCD.
  • The holder challenged the authenticity, lawfulness and disclosure value of the emails, catalogues and related materials, and argued that the cited machines differed in relevant visual details.
  • The Board held that D3 had been sufficiently identified and disclosed through a commercial email with an attached catalogue and that the contested RCD produced the same overall impression as that prior design.
  • The appeal succeeded; the contested decision was annulled and the contested RCD was declared invalid for lack of individual character.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurS. Rizzo
  • MemberH. Salmi
  • Registrarp.o. E. Apaolaza

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esSpanishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0092/2022-32022-10-25Decision annulledArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2)9
R0093/2022-32022-10-25Decision annulledArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2)9
R2322/2024-32025-05-21Decision confirmedArt 63(2), Art 28(1)(b), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)8
R2427/2023-32024-07-31Decision partially annulledArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2)8
R2422/2022-32024-01-30Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)8
R1103/2022-32023-02-15Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)8
R0055/2022-32022-10-07Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2)8
R1648/2019-32020-09-10Decision confirmedArt 63(2), Art 28(1)(b), Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b)8