DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008175384-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-02-06

R1886/2022-3

Contested design: 008175384-0001

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's costs 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

De besloten vennootschap Atelier 49 Nederland B.V.via PDF extraction

Netherlands (NL)

Wethouder Buitenhuissstraat 1, 7951 SJ Staphorst, Netherlands

Represented by

M.C.J. Freijters

Holder · RCD owner

Babyjem Bebek Ürünleri Sanayi Ticaret Anonim Sirketivia PDF extraction

Türkiye (TR)

Firuzköy Bulvari, No:114/A-5, Avcilar Istanbul, Turkey

Represented by

Francisco José Rodríguez Alvarez

Prior art cited (2)

Catalog

LUMA Babycare baby bathtub

BabyCare LUMA Catalogue 2013 · BabyCare LUMA Catalogue 2013

Web disclosure

LUMA Babycare baby bathtub shown on Facebook

LUMA Babycare Facebook post · Facebook · disclosed 2013-08-08

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The design holder argued that baby-bathtub design freedom was heavily constrained by safety requirements and that the cited prior bath differed in the shape of its ends, openings and details.
  • The invalidity applicant did not file observations in reply on appeal; at first instance it had relied on its 2013 catalogue and a 2013 Facebook post showing the earlier LUMA bath.
  • The Board held that the earlier bath had been sufficiently disclosed before filing and that the cited differences, including details said to follow from safety requirements, did not alter the similar overall impression on the informed user.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the invalidation for lack of individual character was confirmed; the copyright ground was not examined further.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurC. Negro
  • MemberH. Salmi
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗