DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000363486-0028

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-12-10

R1125/2021-3

Contested design: 000363486-0028

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the RCD holder must bear the fees and costs incurred by the invalidity applicant.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Desestimar el recurso. 2. Ordenar que la titular del DMC sufrague las tasas y las costas sufragadas por la solicitante de nulidad.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

CANALONES NOVOKANAL, S. L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Calle de Huelva, 6 Nave 5, Pol. Ind. La Carrehuela, 28343 Valdemoro (Madrid), España

Represented by

Javier Ungría López

Holder · RCD owner

CANALONES CASTILLA S. L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Calle Embalse n.° 5, 28607 El Alamo (Madrid), España

Prior art cited (1)

International designAnexo 5

round downpipe with four longitudinal grooves

DM 020 105 · OMPI · disclosed 1991-09-30

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The RCD holder appealed, arguing the earlier design had not been properly proven disclosed before priority and that the structural differences and market acceptance supported validity.
  • The invalidity applicant replied that prior disclosure was sufficiently proven under Article 7 and that the cited differences did not change the overall impression on the informed user.
  • The Board accepted the WIPO extract for international design DM 020 105 as proof of prior disclosure before the claimed priority date.
  • The Board found broad designer freedom and held that both designs created the same overall impression despite minor differences in groove spacing and the welded seam.
  • The appeal was dismissed, the invalidity finding under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6 was confirmed, and costs were awarded against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurH. Salmi
  • MemberS. Rizzo
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
itItalianhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esSpanishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0181/2025-32025-05-27Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0827/2024-32025-03-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1336/2024-32025-03-03Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0797/2024-32025-01-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1123/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1124/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1015/2024-32024-11-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0252/2024-32024-11-05Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5