Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-02-28
R0861/2023-3
Contested design: 004014124-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder’s costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings, fixed at EUR 900.
Show verbatim operative text(fr)
1. Le recours est rejeté. 2. La demanderesse en nullité devra supporter les frais exposés par la titulaire du dessin ou modèle contesté dans le cadre des procédures de nullité et de recours, lesquels sont fixés à 900 EUR.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €900
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Lidl Nederland GmbHvia PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
Huizermaatweg 45, 1273 NA Huizen, Pays-Bas
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Morel S.A.S.via PDF extraction
France (FR)
ZI rue Blaise Pascal, 39000 Lons-Le-Saunier, France
Represented by
Prior art cited (9)
square shade sail sold on Amazon
Amazon model disclosed from May 2017 · Amazon
square shade sail sold on Amazon
ASIN B008041FHA · Amazon · disclosed 2012-05-01
square shade-sail design published as a Community design
eSearch / Community design register
square shade-sail design published as a Community design
eSearch / Community design register
square shade-sail design published as a Community design
eSearch / Community design register
square shade-sail design published as a Community design, with dotted pattern
eSearch / Community design register
square shade sail sold on Amazon
Amazon model disclosed from June 2017 · Amazon
rectangular or square shade-sail design extracted from catalogues
catalogue model from 2013 · catalogue · disclosed 2013-01-01
rectangular or square shade-sail design extracted from catalogues
catalogue model from 2013 · catalogue · disclosed 2013-01-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested square shade-sail design was purely functional and, in any event, lacked novelty and individual character over earlier square sails and dotted or illuminated textile designs.
- ›The holder answered that the registered design protected a starry-light effect on the sail, not mere dots, and that the patent material and prior designs did not show the claimed appearance was exclusively technical or individually indistinct.
- ›The Board found that at least one visible feature of the contested design, especially the luminous points and their contrast with the dark textile, was not shown to be solely technically dictated, so Article 8(1) failed.
- ›It further held that the prior designs did not create the same overall impression because they lacked the contested design’s light-source appearance and contrasting seam layout, so the appeal was dismissed.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurM. Bra
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0862/2023-3 | 2024-02-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(1), Art 8(1), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 11 |
| R2349/2019-3 | 2020-09-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(1), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0494/2023-3 | 2024-03-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R2289/2022-3 | 2023-12-13 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R2068/2019-3 | 2023-06-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R2444/2020-3 | 2023-05-15 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(1) | — | 7 |
| R0878/2022-3 | 2023-02-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |