Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-06-28
R2504/2022-3
Contested design: 008631477-0001
Outcome
The contested decision is annulled, the contested Community design is declared invalid, and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's costs and fees in both instances.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision and declares the Community design No 8 631 477-0001 invalid; 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
Rifetech s.r.o.via PDF extraction
Czechia (CZ)
Zelný trh 292/11, 60200 Brno, Czech Republic
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Praha ALFA-MED s.r.o.via PDF extraction
Czechia (CZ)
Křenova 438/5, 162 00 Praha 6, Czech Republic
Represented by
Jarmila Javoříková
Prior art cited (3)
Sanoplasma 2 plasma generator shown on the invalidity applicant's website
https://rifetech.cz/ · Wayback Machine captures of rifetech.cz · disclosed 2021-01-24
Facebook post showing the Sanoplasma 2 plasma generator
Plazmový generátor Rifetech · Facebook · disclosed 2020-08-06
sales of the Sanoplasma 2 plasma generator to customers in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom
invoices dated from April 2020 to March 2021
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested plasma-generator design lacked individual character because its cuboid control unit, display placement, transparent housing, legs, and inner lamp arrangement matched the earlier Sanoplasma 2 design it had disclosed online, on Facebook, and through sales.
- ›The design holder replied that the prior design showed only part of a different marketed product, that technical constraints and common market patterns limited designer freedom, and that differences in the lamp, housing, controls, colours, and use with a tripod changed the overall impression.
- ›The Board ratified disclosure of the earlier design and found that the most visible features of both designs coincided: a cuboid control unit with a display on the left beneath a transparent housing containing the same two-bulb lamp arrangement and wide transparent legs.
- ›It held that the remaining differences were insufficient to alter the same overall impression on the informed user, so the appeal succeeded and the contested design was declared invalid for lack of individual character.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberS. Rizzo
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2030/2022-3 | 2023-06-07 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2417/2018-3 | 2023-03-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2415/2018-3 | 2023-03-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2416/2018-3 | 2023-03-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2443/2020-3 | 2023-01-17 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0068/2022-3 | 2023-01-09 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0093/2022-3 | 2022-10-25 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0092/2022-3 | 2022-10-25 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |