Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-02-28
R0862/2023-3
Contested design: 004014124-0002
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)
Havenstraat 71, 1271 AD 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 (6)
triangular shade sail sold online
internet model disclosed from March 2015 · internet / Amazon comments page · disclosed 2015-03-01
triangular shade sail sold online
internet model disclosed from May 2014 · internet / Amazon page · disclosed 2014-05-01
triangular shade-sail design published in China
CN 302 408 003 · WIPO IP portal · disclosed 2013-04-24
triangular shade-sail design owned by the holder
RCD 3 366 954-0002 · Community design register · disclosed 2016-09-19
triangular shade-sail design in public space
public-domain model from 2009 · internet · disclosed 2009-01-01
triangular shade-sail design from catalogue
catalogue model from 2013 · catalogue · disclosed 2013-01-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested triangular shade-sail design was purely functional and lacked novelty and individual character over earlier triangular sails disclosed online, in catalogues and through earlier design registrations.
- ›The holder replied that the design protected a triangular sail with visible luminous points and contrasting seams, and that the cited materials did not prove either pure functionality or the same overall impression.
- ›The Board held that the luminous-point appearance was not shown to be exclusively dictated by technical function, so Article 8(1) could not invalidate the design.
- ›It also found that the cited prior designs lacked the same light-source effect and contrasting vertical seam layout, so the contested design remained new and individually distinctive and 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0861/2023-3 | 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 |