Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-12-11
R1434/2024-3
Contested design: 002126649-0002
Outcome
The appeal is upheld, the contested decision is annulled, the case is remitted to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution, and each party bears its own appeal costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision; 2. Remits the case to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution; 3. Orders each party to bear its own costs and fees incurred in the appeal proceedings.
CostsEach party bears its own costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Tomasz Bentkowskivia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Jesionowa 14, 62-005 Owińska, Poland
Represented by
Marika Kabacińska
Holder · RCD owner
Lilou Sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Filtrowa 50, 02-032 Warszawa, Poland
Represented by
Łukasz Baszczyński
Prior art cited (4)
Seven undated images submitted with the invalidity application showing three pieces of jewellery, three arches and one bag with the alleged lily/lilac motif.
Photograph of bags featuring the alleged lilac motif pattern, attributed to Bert Stern.
Vogue, listopad, 1967 · Vogue
Photograph of bags featuring the alleged lilac motif pattern, attributed to Anton Bruehl.
Vogue, czerwiec, 1930 · Vogue
Photograph of a medieval arch showing the lilac device relied on as the prior design.
Cloisters of Europe, Viking Studio, 2001 · book cited in article dated 2015-11-03
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The appellant argued that the contested RCD lacked novelty and individual character because the lily or lilac motif had been publicly disclosed long before filing in jewellery, bags and medieval architecture.
- ›The holder argued before the Invalidity Division that the evidence lacked dates, source and origin, and it filed no observations in reply to the appeal.
- ›The Board held that the undated first-instance images and the two Vogue bag photographs did not prove disclosure, but Annex 3 validly showed prior public disclosure of the arch motif.
- ›The appeal was allowed; the rejection was annulled and the case remitted for examination of novelty and individual character, with each party bearing its own appeal costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarM. Chaleva
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deGerman | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2453/2023-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R2422/2022-3 | 2024-01-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R0489/2022-3 | 2023-12-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R2289/2022-3 | 2023-12-13 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R2336/2022-3 | 2023-11-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R0878/2022-3 | 2023-02-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R1103/2022-3 | 2023-02-15 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R0746/2022-3 | 2023-01-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 6 |