DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008126841-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-05-31

R1562/2022-3

Contested design: 008126841-0001

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

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

MRKK ApSvia PDF extraction

Denmark (DK)

Stokagervej 5, 8240 Risskov, Denmark

Represented by

Otello Law Firm

Holder · RCD owner

Deluxe Holding ApSvia PDF extraction

Denmark (DK)

Kobbervej 7, 6000 Kolding, Denmark

Represented by

LOJE IP

Prior art cited (1)

National design

electric candle / Christmas tree light

DR 2020 00027 · Danish design register · disclosed 2020-05-06

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5Article 7(1)Article 7(2)Article 7(3)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant relied on Danish design registration DR 2020 00027 and argued that the contested electric candle was identical to the earlier design and therefore lacked novelty.
  • The design holder argued that disclosure of the prior design was abusive because it had allegedly shown the contested candle earlier at the Formland fair, and it also maintained that the designs differed in the flame, groove, proportions and market context.
  • The Board held that publication of the Danish design on 6 May 2020 proved disclosure, that the design holder had not established abuse within the grace-period exception, and that the conflicting candle designs were identical apart from immaterial details.
  • The Board upheld the invalidity finding for lack of novelty, dismissed the appeal, and ordered the design holder to bear the costs.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurH. Salmi
  • MemberM. Bra
  • 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 ↗

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0055/2022-32022-10-07Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 7(2), Art 7(3)11
R1290/2021-32022-10-26Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 7(2)9
R1289/2021-32022-10-26Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 7(2)9
R1288/2021-32022-06-02Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 7(2)9
R2422/2022-32024-01-30Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R2336/2022-32023-11-27Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 7(2)7
R0542/2022-32023-04-03Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 7(2)7
R1103/2022-32023-02-15Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7