Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-02-15
R1103/2022-3
Contested design: 002951335-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the design holder must bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(fr)
1. Rejette le recours; 2. Condamne la titulaire du dessin ou modèle à supporter les frais et taxes exposés par le demandeur en nullité dans le cadre des procédures de nullité et de recours.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
PAUL SITGES ALONSOvia PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Hostafrancs de Sió, 26-1°-1a, 08014 Barcelona, Espagne
Holder · RCD owner
CLOFORvia PDF extraction
France (FR)
Les Forges, BP 9, 38140 Renage, France
Prior art cited (1)
GIGA fence post profile
POTEAU GIGA / ref. 24 025 033 · CLOTEX / GIRARDOT / GANTOIS catalogue, technical sheet and invoices · disclosed 2014-07-11
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the GIGA fence post profile had been marketed before filing and that the contested RCD was identical or at least devoid of novelty and individual character.
- ›The holder challenged admissibility and the probative value of the catalogue, technical sheet, invoices and declaration, arguing they did not concretely prove pre-filing disclosure of the same profile.
- ›The Board accepted the documentary record as concrete and objective evidence of disclosure and found the prior post profile identical to the contested design apart from an insignificant colour difference.
- ›The appeal by the holder was dismissed; the contested RCD was correctly found invalid for lack of novelty and the holder must bear costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- MemberE. Fink
- MemberS. Rizzo
- Registrarp.o. R. Vidal Romero
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2422/2022-3 | 2024-01-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1051/2019-3 | 2020-06-23 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 52(3) | — | 9 |
| R1734/2019-3 | 2020-06-15 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1731/2019-3 | 2020-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R0616/2019-3 | 2020-04-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R0987/2018-3 | 2019-06-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R2443/2020-3 | 2023-01-17 | Decision annulled | Art 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 8 |
| R1747/2022-3 | 2024-01-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |