DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000624697-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-07-31

R2427/2023-3

Contested design: 000624697-0001

CDRAppellant: applicantmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Appeal partially upheld

The Board partially annulled the decision on the Article 4(1) invalidity ground, otherwise dismissed the appeal, remitted the case, and ordered each party to bear its own appeal costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Partially annuls the contested decision, insofar as the Invalidity Division rejected the invalidity request based on Article 25(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 4(1) CDR; 2. Dismisses the appeal insofar as the invalidity request based on Article 25(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 8(1) CDR, was rejected; 3. Remits the case to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution; 4. Orders that each party bear its own costs and fees in the appeal proceedings.

CostsEach party bears its own costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

REBOMA trgovina in gradbeništvo, d.o.o.via PDF extraction

SI

Cesarjeva ulica 29, 8000 Novo mesto, Slovenia

Represented by

Jure Marn

Holder · RCD owner

3S SPORT D.O.O.via PDF extraction

SI

Perovo 25, 1240 Kamnik, Slovenia

Represented by

Marjan Pipan

Prior art cited (16)

Patent

Chinese patent application for "a kind of Appliance for storing & taking coins"

CN200520130517 · China · disclosed 2005-11-04

CatalogD1⚠ rejected as evidence

purse

Beijing Royal Aviation Technology catalogue 2005 · Beijing Royal Aviation Technology

National designD2

coin dispenser

French model No 98 211 · INPI French Bulletin · disclosed 2002-03-29

National designD3

purse

French design No 20 473 · INPI French Bulletin · disclosed 1998-08-21

National designD4

French design No 12 408 · INPI French Bulletin · disclosed 1925-04-27

Web disclosureD5

wallet design commercialised by Asoma Oy

www.asoma.fi (Wayback Machine) · Wayback Machine / Asoma website · disclosed 2002-12-07

Web disclosureD6

wallet design commercialised by Asoma Oy

www.asoma.fi (Wayback Machine) · Wayback Machine / Asoma website · disclosed 2002-12-07

Prior useD7⚠ rejected as evidence

wallet commercialised by Secure Project / SDSP

SMAU 2002 show in Milan · fair pictures and leaflet · disclosed 2002-10-24

Prior useD8⚠ rejected as evidence

purse commercialised by SDSP

Marsupio €-bag dispenser Tagli Monete · SDSP statement and invoices

Web disclosureD9⚠ rejected as evidence

Asoma wallet

webpage screenshot

Web disclosureD10

wallet design

Wayback Machine extract · Wayback Machine

OtherD11⚠ rejected as evidence

coin dispenser

OtherD12⚠ rejected as evidence
OtherD13⚠ rejected as evidence
Web disclosureD14

wallet design

Wayback Machine extract · Wayback Machine

OtherD15⚠ rejected as evidence

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 8(1)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 4(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing the earlier designs were sufficiently identified and disclosed, the contested purse lacked individual character, and its features were dictated by technical function.
  • The design holder filed no observations in the invalidity proceedings and did not respond to the appeal.
  • The Board held the Chinese patent only supported the coin organiser feature, so the applicant failed to show that all appearance features were solely technically dictated under Article 8(1).
  • The Board accepted additional appeal evidence for D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D10 and D14, found disclosure proven for those designs, annulled the Article 4/6 rejection, and remitted the case.

Deciding panel

  • ChairS. Stürmann
  • RapporteurH. Salmi
  • MemberS. Rizzo
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0055/2022-32022-10-07Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 60(1)10
R2443/2020-32023-01-17Decision annulledArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2)8
R0093/2022-32022-10-25Decision annulledArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2)8
R0092/2022-32022-10-25Decision annulledArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2)8
R1696/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 63(2)8
R1695/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 63(2)8
R1694/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 63(2)8
R1699/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 63(2)8