Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-02-03
R1263/2021-3
Contested design: 006277935-0006
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
1. Desestimar el recurso; 2. Ordenar que la solicitante de nulidad sufrague las costas de la titular.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €900
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
Prior art cited (2)
Earlier CIBERPAN resting chamber shown in December 2017 trade magazine advertisement
revista "entre panes y pastas" de diciembre de 2017
Earlier model 98 resting chamber shown in catalogues attached to commercial emails
model 98 resting chamber catalogue · catalogues attached to commercial emails sent between 2016 and 2017
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested resting-chamber design lacked novelty and individual character in light of earlier designs D1 to D3 that had been disclosed through trade publications, catalogues and commercial emails.
- ›The holder challenged the disclosure and comparability of the earlier materials and argued that the cited machines differed visually in relevant structural details from the contested RCD.
- ›The Board accepted disclosure of D1 and D3 under Article 7 CDR but agreed with the Invalidity Division that, despite some coincidences, the contested design created a different overall impression from those earlier designs.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the invalidity action remained unsuccessful and the invalidity applicant was ordered to pay EUR 900 in representation costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberH. Salmi
- Registrarp.o. R. Vidal Romero
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R2283/2019-3 | 2021-02-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R2349/2019-3 | 2020-09-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1648/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1649/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1650/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R0116/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0115/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |