Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-11-06
R1455/2022-3
Contested design: 007990692-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal. 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Aures Technologiesvia PDF extraction
France (FR)
24 bis rue Léonard de Vinci ZAC des Folies, 91090 Lisses, France
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Senor Tech Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
Taiwan (TW)
No.165, Kangning Street, Xizhi District, 22150 New Taipei City, Taiwan, Province of China
Represented by
Pei-Wen Li
Prior art cited (1)
point-of-sale [POS] terminal
RCD No 5 772 563-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-10-19
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the prior RCD and the contested POS terminal had the same overall shape and arrangement, so the contested design lacked individual character.
- ›The design holder replied that functional constraints limited design freedom and that the base, arm, folded thickness and colour arrangement created a different overall impression.
- ›The Board accepted disclosure of the earlier RCD and found the informed user attentive, but still considered the differences in base shape, casing, arm, screen and folded profile decisive.
- ›It confirmed that the contested RCD produced a different overall impression, so the invalidity application had been correctly rejected and the appeal failed.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurC. Bartos
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1214/2023-3 | 2024-02-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0574/2022-3 | 2023-01-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0573/2022-3 | 2023-01-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0618/2021-3 | 2022-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0619/2021-3 | 2022-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1635/2019-3 | 2020-10-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2349/2019-3 | 2020-09-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1649/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |