000119358

• ›The applicant argued that the contested parasol design lacked novelty and individual character because similar parasols had been disclosed since 2012 on Facebook, at an exhibition in Portugal, and through commercial use.
• ›The holder said the application stemmed from the applicant's unfair conduct, challenged much of the evidence, and argued the contested design had straighter, more robust and visually cleaner features than the earlier parasol.
• ›The Invalidity Division accepted the Facebook screenshots dated 17/04/2012 as sufficient prior disclosure under Article 7(1) CDR and disregarded the parties' late-filed additional material as irrelevant.
• ›Comparing D1 with the contested design, the Division found only minor differences in curvature, shading and small details, insufficient to alter the overall impression on the informed user.
• ›The application was upheld because the contested design lacked individual character under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 4(1) and 6(1)(b) CDR.

• MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
• MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
• MemberElisabetta FERRARO

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