Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-03-19
R0494/2023-3
Contested design: 008044010-0002
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must reimburse the design holder’s costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings in the total amount of EUR 900.
Show verbatim operative text(fr)
Le recours est rejeté; 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
Vaisala Francevia PDF extraction
France (FR)
43 rue de Liège, 75008 Paris, France
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
B.R.Cvia PDF extraction
France (FR)
Route de Sainte-Poix, 35370 Le Pertre, France
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
laboratory test report for a Windcube Box sample
Windcube Box test report · Laboratoire National de Météorologie et d’Essais · disclosed 2019-08-29
presentation of the previous Windcube version
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that an earlier Windcube container had already been disclosed before filing through a 2019 test report, a presentation of the previous Windcube version and related supporting materials, and that the contested design was also technically dictated.
- ›The design holder replied that the cited materials were generated by the applicant itself, that no concrete public disclosure had been proven, that any 2019 disclosure would in any event fall within the grace period, and that the container included non-technical aesthetic choices.
- ›The Board held that the cited materials did not prove an effective public disclosure of the earlier design before filing and also found that the technical-function objection failed because the applicant had not shown that all appearance features were solely dictated by technical function.
- ›The appeal was dismissed, the rejection of the invalidity application was confirmed, and the invalidity applicant was ordered to reimburse fixed costs of EUR 900.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberE. Fink
- Registrarp.o. R. Vidal Romero
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 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R0861/2023-3 | 2024-02-28 | 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 |
| R0878/2022-3 | 2023-02-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R0485/2021-3 | 2022-09-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R1694/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R1699/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |