A Review of the First 300 Decisions on the Validity of Registered Community Designs

(Second Edition)

MARQUES Designs Team 22 February 2008

MARQUES, 840 Melton Road, Thurmaston, Leicester, LE4 8BN Tel: +44 116 264 0080, Fax: +44 116 264 0141, E-mail: info@marques.org, URL: www.marques.org

REVIEW OF OHIM RCD INVALIDITY DECISION
This is the Second Edition of a Review first published in January 2007. Since then, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) has issued a further 150 decisions on invalidity of Registered Community Designs (RCDs), bringing the total number of decisions considered in this Review to 300. Unfortunately, the need for the Review has not yet passed: Council Regulation EC 6/2002 (the Regulation) has not yet had the benefit of the interpretation of the Court of First Instance (CFI) or European Court of Justice (ECJ), and the decisions of national courts (sitting as Community Design Courts) have been neither bold nor consistent. In this context, the MARQUES Designs Team has repeated the exercise first undertaken in late 2006, in order to assist designers, brand owners and legal practitioners by condensing the jurisprudence apparent in 300 decisions into this Review. I wish to thank the MARQUES Design Team for their hard work in putting together this Review, and my colleague Liam Collens for his coordination and statistical assistance. Any errors remain mine. Comments are welcome at stoned@howrey.com. MARQUES is the Association of European Trade Mark Owners. More information on MARQUES, as well as an electronic searchable version of this Review can be found at www.marques.org. David Stone Chair MARQUES Designs Team 22 February 2008

© 2008

.. 8 Article 25 (1)(b) ................................20 4.........................37 ii .....................................................1 4.................................. Methodology ......30 Article 25(1)(e) ...............................................................................1 4.................... Miscellaneous....................29 Article 9................................................10 “Made available to the public”.......................................................... 9 Article 4(2) and (3) ..........................36 4..............................................29 Article 25(1)(d) ..18 “Individual character” ....................2...............28 Article 8(2)....................................................1 Who is the “informed user”? ....29 Article 25(1)(c) .2 4..........6 4.3 3.............................................................17 “New”...........................................................................2...................2 3.......................................................................................................................................................................................................10 4.................28 Article 8(3)................2 Design freedom.....................7 4........ 3 3...........7 What is being compared? .............................................................................7...............................11 4...................................................................... 3....... 5 Rate of success ...........2.................2.............4 4....1 3...........6 4.. 4 RCD holders.............................2 Article 25 (1)(a) ..................................................................................................... 6 Nature of the RCD.......3 4..5 4...................2............................. 6 Analysis..................................................................................9 4......................................................5 3............................................................................................... 6 Grounds for invalidity ...................35 Article 25(1)(g) ..................................4 3...............................2....................................................... Languages............12 5.........................................................20 4....................22 4... 3 Applicants for invalidity ...............................................7........................2...5 4..............................................6 4......12 Evidence of disclosure to the public........................................................................15 “New” versus “individual character”.............................7...............8 4............2........2..............................23 Article 8(1)............... 2 Statistics........................................................... 9 4......................................................3 “Overall impression” ....2..........................................................31 Article 25(1)(f) ........ 8 4..................... 2.................4 4.......................... 1 Some caveats.....................TABLE OF CONTENTS 1...................................................

Evaluators were asked to complete a short form in relation to each invalidity decision reviewed. 1 . Methodology The first 300 decisions on the validity of RCDs given by the Invalidity Division of OHIM were divided for review amongst the members of the MARQUES Designs Team listed at Annex A.1. Annex C will be updated from time to time and posted on the MARQUES website. The forms were then collated by the Chair of the MARQUES Designs Team and statistics generated. An overview of the decisions reviewed can be found at Annex C. A blank form is at Annex B.

decisions are now written in standard form. 2 . no assessment could be made on the basis of the evidence available to the Invalidity Division. stretching at most to a few pages. the publication of Board of Appeal decisions by OHIM remains lamentably slow.2. Some caveats Most decisions of the Invalidity Division are concise. Therefore. The Design Team wishes to thank Pedro Rodinger of OHIM for his assistance in accessing Board of Appeal decisions. The reasoning given is therefore limited. Evaluators worked solely from the reported decisions. Evaluators did not seek to access the files held by OHIM for each decision. and they remain difficult to access on OHIM’s website. Board of Appeal decisions have been mentioned where available as at 31 December 2007. Other than the first few decisions. and there is usually little by way of analysis. However.

For local disputes (as many of the disputes appear to be) this may well be an option that increases in popularity. This now appears not to be the case. The clear statistical interest in English suggests greater resources should be applied to ensure decisions are available in English.3. In our earlier Review. we suggested this might be a statistical anomaly because OHIM may have dealt with these decisions first. The number of Spanish language decisions seems to be high.1 Languages The 300 decisions were given in the following languages: Language English Spanish German Italian French Danish No. The language of the invalidity proceedings is one of the two languages nominated by the RCD owner at the time of application (the language of the proceedings is the first language of the RCD application if it is one of the five working languages of OHIM. Therefore many decisions remain (and will remain) available in only one language. OHIM selects a small number of key decisions each year to translate into the five working languages of OHIM. 3 . The sample size of 300 is small: any conclusions should be drawn with care. the rate of translations remains slow. Thus. one decision is given in Danish. of RCD invalidity decisions 115 80 60 41 3 1 Proceedings must be in one of the five working languages of OHIM. The language of the proceedings may be a language other than one of the five working languages of OHIM by agreement between the parties. otherwise it is the second language). These statistics likely reflect that English is chosen as one of the two languages for 96% of RCD applications filed. Sadly. The number of Spanish language decisions likely reflects a comparatively greater involvement by Spanish speakers with the RCD invalidity system when compared with the RCD filing system. Statistics The following statistics are offered to try to draw some conclusions from the first 300 decisions. although the expense to OHIM (and therefore users of the system) may increase significantly if case files in languages other than the five working languages need to be translated for the panellists. 3.

This appears to have continued. the apparent over-representation of Spanish applicants for invalidity was noted.2 Applicants for invalidity 120 entities applied for the invalidity of 300 RCDs. The nationalities of the applicants for invalidity break down as follows: Country of origin of applicant for invalidity Spain Germany UK USA France Portugal Netherlands Sweden Italy Switzerland Poland Austria Denmark China Taiwan Japan Hong Kong Czech Republic Belgium Latvia Korea Croatia Finland Canada No of applicants for invalidity 32 24 8 6 6 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 No of designs 83 55 17 26 14 10 9 12 10 9 5 6 4 3 3 7 6 2 2 6 4 4 2 1 The first 300 decisions are the result of comparatively few disputes. (Spanish RCD applicants represent less than 7% of the total RCDs filed. The figures appear to suggest a disproportionate engagement by the Spanish with the invalidity system as compared to the number of designs filed by Spanish entities.e. Of the entities applying. Calvin Klein has filed the most invalidity applications (16). 4 . The highest number of designs challenged in a single dispute (i. The argument that this reflects OHIM’s greater ease of dealing with Spanish language decisions now seems untenable. but one in four applicants for invalidity). 18 were natural persons and 102 were corporate entities.53 designs. The average number of invalidity applications per applicant is 2.3. same parties. with most applicants for invalidity applying for invalidity of more than one design. in the first edition of this Review. As noted above. same approximate filing date) is 13.

Hong Kong) France Sweden Taiwan UK Austria Portugal Netherlands Denmark Turkey Latvia Croatia Finland Korea BVI Canada Switzerland No of RCD holders 25 18 16 11 10 9 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 No of designs 78 40 38 29 18 20 4 12 8 7 6 6 2 2 11 6 3 2 2 1 1 1 As with applicants for invalidity. The nationalities of the RCD holders break down as follows: Country of origin of the RCD holder Spain Italy Germany USA Poland China (incl. Chinese designers bring invalidity applications less often than their RCDs are attacked by third parties.It was always anticipated that German entities would be big users of the system (24% of RCDs filed). Ten designs owned by a single Turkish entity were attacked.3 RCD holders The RCDs against which applications were made were owned by 118 entities. a small number of RCD holders made up the bulk of RCDs against which invalidity applications were made. This is borne out by the statistics on invalidity decisions. Venilia SA was the entity against whom the most cases had been decided (13). 3. six RCDs for the shape of microphones were successfully invalidated by a competitor: both the RCD owner and the competitor are based in Latvia. 5 . As one perhaps might expect. Many of the disputes appear to be local. Since the first Review. there has been a noticeable increase in disputes involving Polish parties. For example.

we suggest this will improve as the quality of the evidence filed by the invalidating party improves. Ignoring the statistically insignificant grounds of Article 25(1)(a). (c) and (f). OHIM removed all traces of RCDs that were declared invalid.4 Rate of success Of the 300 invalidity decisions. it is also the least successful ground.3. However. invalidity was found in 65% of the first 300 decided cases. being one of the grounds pleaded in 83% of the cases reviewed. 106 did not invalidate the RCD. This has not occurred: many of the second tranche of 150 cases would have been filed and argued prior to our first Review. 3. This flaw has now thankfully been remedied. Article 25(1)(b) remains the most popular ground of invalidity. 194 invalidated the RCD. It was thus not possible to access the RCD records on-line to determine the Locarno classification. as practitioners learn from the earlier errors of others. the rate of successful invalidity proceedings will increase. Thus. Again. Originally.6 Nature of the RCD No attempt was made to assess each design by its Locarno classification: these are not indicated in the decisions. we remain hopeful that. we posited the view that the rate of invalidity would increase as practitioners better understood the requirements for invalidity. 3. In our first Review. This is roughly the same success rate as for the first 150 decided cases (66% invalidity).5 Grounds for Invalidity Grounds for invalidity Article 25(1)(a) Article 25(1)(b) Article 25(1)(c) Article 25(1)(d) Article 25(1)(e) Article 25(1)(f) Article 25(1)(g) Invalid 1 154 15 22 2 Invalidity application rejected 101 1 3 6 1 - The figures above do not tally to the total of 300 decisions reviewed because some applications for invalidity relied on more than one ground of invalidity. 6 .

hearing ventilation and air-conditioning equipment). including logos). and 99 (miscellaneous. 2 (clothing and haberdashery). 23 (fluid distribution equipment.The following broad categories of designs were involved for the RCDs in issue. parts & tools Tools Logo/label Medical/dental devices Lighters 36 35 20 12 9 12 17 12 9 11 8 5 4 5 4 1 1 50 45 34 24 21 19 17 16 15 15 8 8 8 7 6 6 1 The top Locarno Classes for filing RCD applications are (in order) 6(furnishing). 7 . The filing of logos (as a percentage of total RCD filings) appears to be increasing. Nature of the RCD Invalid Invalidity application rejected 14 10 14 12 12 7 10 4 6 4 3 4 2 2 5 Total Clothing Electricals Containers and packaging Games/toys/dolls Food and beverages Ornamentation Building/structure Lights Furniture Kitchenware Fonts Stationery Vehicles. sanitary. 9 (packaging and containers).

4. ICD 2913. Better quality invalidity applications would greatly benefit the RCD system.R. Article 3 For the purposes of this Regulation (a) “design” means the appearance of the whole or a part of the product resulting from the features of. 16 February 2007. colours. although there are now a goodly number of Community Design Court decisions. the lines. As OHIM does not rely on them Community Design Court decisions (it is only bound by the CFI and ECJ) we do not refer to them here. applicants for invalidity and practitioners. To date.1 Article 25 (1)(a) Article 25 1. shape. 8 .. The designs shown in the RCD appeared to show different products (different “heater elements” as shown here). in particular. no decision by the Invalidity Division or the Board of Appeal cites a decision on the Regulation by a Community Design Court. texture and/or materials of the product itself and or its ornamentation.4. RCD owners. contours. RCD OHIM invalidated the RCD. (a) A Community design may be declared invalid only in the following cases: if the design does not correspond to the definition under Article 3(a).L. There is only one substantive decision under this Article: The Heating Company BVBA v Tubes Radiatori S. Analysis The aim of this section of our Review is to provide descriptions of the first 300 decisions made by OHIM in order to assist designers.

Features of the appearance of an RCD which are not recognisable in the representation of the RCD cannot be invoked to differentiate the RCD from the prior art: see. A Community design may be declared invalid only in the following cases: … (b) if it does not fulfil the requirements of Articles 4 to 9. ICD 1592. 17 August 2006.2. • Features of a component part of a complex product which are not visible during its normal use are to be left aside when considering novelty and individual character. ICD 1758. ICD 990. the black and white RCD was invalidated. As each case is decided on its facts. Narumi China Corporation v Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd. If no specific 9 • • • • . ICD 1519. e. However. The feature of colour can only be compared if the representation of the RCD is recognisable as a coloured representation. because the prior designs submitted did not include the colours of the RCD in the same ratio: BÜMAG EG v The Procter & Gamble Company. In that case. 7 February 2006.4. 4. for example.2 Article 25 (1)(b) Article 25 1. 15 May 2006. a relevantly identical challenged RCD that had been filed including colour was upheld. a bright colour is visible by using a coloured background: Retsch Porzellan GmbH v Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd. 7 February 2006. 15 May 2006. 26 January 2006 and Retsch Porzellan GmbH v Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd. Several decisions help to identify what aspects of the RCD are to be considered when making the comparison with the prior design/s. Article 4 1.1 What is being compared? The RCD is compared with each prior design/s presented by the applicant for invalidity. care should be taken when seeking to draw solid “rules” from these decisions. ICD 1741. The material used to create the design should not be taken into consideration when it is not obvious from the representation of the RCD. A design shall be protected by a Community design to the extent that it is new and has individual character.g. as are features dictated solely by technical function or which allow for mechanical connection to another product: Honda Giken Kogyo KK v Kwang Yang Motor Co Ltd. An RCD registered in black and white will mean that the “feature of the colours cannot be taken into account when assessing the individual character of the [RCD]”: BÜMAG EG v The Procter & Gamble Company. ICD 1519.

however. since it is a component part of a complex product which remains visible in normal use (see Articles 3(c) and 4(2)(a) CDR). 27 April 2004. 1 December 2005. • The comparison must be of the whole of the RCD with the prior design. It is therefore important that the aspects of the RCD are taken from the RCD and not. and 10 . The question then would have been whether the handle in the earlier design and the redesigned handle produce the same overall impression on the informed user. Since. 20 February 2006.2. The question might well have received an affirmative answer in view of the differences enumerated by the appellant. the RCD owner argued that the handles were different and that this was sufficient to create a different overall impression on the informed user: Daka Research Inc v Ampel 24 Vertriebs-GmbH & Co KG. from products made to the design shown in the RCD. A tribunal assessing validity (or infringement) of an RCD has only the representation of the RCD to work from.material is indicated. 4. If the two designs are looked at as a whole. once it has been incorporated into the complex product. the conclusion must be that they produce the same overall impression on the informed user. the contested RCD concerns the underwater device as a whole (and not merely the handle). ICD 24. the comparison must be effected between the whole of the earlier design and the whole of the contested RCD. the RCD relates to the shape of the design irrespective of the material used to create it: Eredu S Coop v Arrmet SRL. Designers should therefore give careful consideration at the time of filing RCD applications: what is and is not included in the RCD application could have important implications for validity of the RCD. These decisions seem to us to be sensible and practical. ICD 1535. The Board of Appeal noted: “The appellant could have sought design protection for the handle alone.” • Only the features of the design shown in the RCD may be taken into account: the indication of the product is not a feature of the design: Retsch Porzellan GmbH v Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd.2 Article 4(2) and (3) Articles 4(2) and 4(3) of the Regulation provide: Article 4(2) A design applied to or incorporated in a product which constitutes a component part of a complex product shall only be considered to be new and to have individual character: (a) if the component part. Case R 196/2006-3. remains visible during normal use of the latter. for example. and for its enforcement. In a case involving an underwater propulsion device.

a component part of a shredding machine. the design must first be for a component part of a complex product. the parties agreed it was for a lawnmower. but by any other looking into the opening for reason such as controlling the amount of material yet processed. During shredding. If the design is not for a component part (i. 16 February 2007. if valid. The Invalidity Division noted: “The normal use of a shredding machine is the shredding of material such as waste. and OHIM proceeded on that basis. as. In Drahtwerk Plochingen GmbH v AVI Alpenlandische-Industrie GmbH.e. Shredding machines were held to be complex products. This does not appear to us to be the correct approach. servicing or repair work. excluding maintenance. the RCD was for a “grilled wire mat”. In Lindner Recyclingtech GmbH v Lars Fransson. not necessarily by the person introducing the material. ICD 3150. as a whole. the machine has to have an opening with direct access to the cutter. ICD 3242. There are surprisingly few decisions that discuss these sub-articles. The Board of Appeal considered Article 4(2) in Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v Kwang Yang Motor Co Ltd. OHIM held that the design is not a component part of a complex product since the wire mat cannot be disassembled and re-assembled. 8 October 2007 and held that an “internal combustion engine” (the identification of product in the RCD registration) is a component part of a complex product. Thus. ICD 3168. Validity should be tested on that basis. 3 April 2007. For introducing this material. are not visible whilst in normal use (such as a pace maker) can still be subject to design protection. the Invalidity Division reviewed a “chaff cutter”.” 11 . OHIM considered the novelty and individual character of those parts of the design visible whilst in use as part of a lawnmower. the entire design does not have to remain visible during normal use: J Wagner GmbH v Hughes Marie Sanoner. Although encased in concrete during normal use (and therefore not visible).(b) to the extent that those visible features of the component part fulfil in themselves the requirements as to novelty and individual character. the RCD is enforceable against all users. the design is for the whole product). Thus products which. the cutter is visible. Article 4(3) “Normal use” within the meaning of paragraph (2)(a) shall mean use by the end user. For Article 4(2)(a) to apply. Case No 1337/2006-3. While the RCD did not indicate for what complex product the internal combustion engine was included. 15 May 2007.

be deemed to have been made available to the public for the sole reason that it has been disclosed to a third party under explicit or implicit conditions of confidentiality. 3 April 2007 where. the panellists may have been influenced by the identity of the designs. ICD 2905.3 “Made available to the public” Article 7 of the Regulation provides: Article 7 1. used in trade or otherwise disclosed … except where these events could not reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned.. The Regulation provides that the novelty and individual character of an RCD are to be assessed against prior designs made available to the public. the RCD holder’s own earlier RCD application was used to invalidate the later RCD application.e. The design shall not. for example. Indeed. 17 August 2006. 20 June 2005. however. in a dispute between two Taiwanese entities. but without reasons or reference to the earlier decision. ICD 990. OHIM noted “in the normal course of business. This later decision may have been influenced by the fact that the USPTO’s databases are available online. Disclosure of the design (in this case. “one of the world’s most important industrial property offices in terms of volume of applications and registrations of designs”: Sunstar Suisse SA v Dentaid SL. it is to be expected that the circles specialised in the engine sector in the European Community keep themselves updated in relation to the competitor’s registered designs in the most relevant countries. In that case.4. Obscure designs are designs which. could not reasonably be expected to come to the attention of those operating in the field in the European Union. in the ordinary course of business. The decisions reviewed establish that the following are relevant disclosures. 26 January 2006. operating within the Community. no mention is made of whether a Taiwanese design registration for a tool handle might not have come to the attention of the relevant circles in the EU. a toothbrush) in the official journal of the Japanese Patent Office. as the United States. but not including obscure designs. 26 January 2007. Publication of a United States design patent was held to have a similar effect with respect to a combustion engine in Honda Giken Kogyo KK v Kwang Yang Motor Co Ltd. ICD 3093. i. This was also the case in Narumi China Corporation v Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd. ICD 1592. For the purpose of applying Articles 5 and 6. disclosures which OHIM has found could reasonably be expected to come to the attention of circles specialised in the sector operating within the EU: • A published RCD application: Louis Vuitton Malletier and Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v Mustapha Bouzekri. • 12 . or exhibited.2.” This line of reasoning appears to have been abandoned in later decisions. because the 12 month grace period had been exceeded by 15 days. Lin Yu Shiu v Lin Chun-Ju. ICD 420. a design shall be deemed to have been made available to the public if it has been published following registration or otherwise. in that case.

15 September 2005. ICD 1014. Perhaps surprisingly the three relevantly identical cases involving PepsiCo are the only ones where a confidential disclosure has been in issue. A fax showing an image of the design sent to the Czech Republic. In that case. 19 September 2005. ICD 180. ICD 2210. 1 July 2005. 1 December 2005. A published international patent application: Rodi Commercial SA v Vuelta International SpA. Interestingly. the Czech Republic was not an EU Member State at the time the fax was sent: WS Teleshop International Handels GmbH v Homeland Housewares LLC. ICD 735. 27 October 2005. and evidence of the date of disclosure: Beata Holdrowicz PANACEUM Import-Export v Bozena Lewicka SZI-BO Export-Import. A product carton showing an image of the design: it was not necessary to show that the carton had even contained the product made to the design: WS Teleshop International Handels GmbH v Homeland Housewares LLC. ICD 362. The fact that a published trade mark application is later rejected does not mean that the design was not disclosed to the public on the date of publication: Burberry Ltd v Creaciones Camal SL. an underwater personal propulsion device) at a fair in Munich: Ampel 24 Vertriebs-GmbH & Co KG v Daka Research Inc. OHIM accepted that Grupo Promer Mon-Graphic had confidentially disclosed the design for a promotional item to PepsiCo. 23 August 2006. Showing the product (in this case.• A published trade mark application in an EU Member State: C Josef Lamy GmbH v Sanford LP. A confidential disclosure to a party who then copies and registers the design will not be a disclosure for the purposes of invalidating the RCD under Article 25(1)(b): Grupo Promer Mon-Graphic SA v PepsiCo Inc. 20 December 2005. A “court application” is not evidence of disclosure without evidence that the document was disclosed to the public. Publication in newspapers and magazines within the EU: Saulespurens v SIA Scruples. 14 March 2007. OHIM invalidated PepsiCo’s registration on the basis of other disclosures. ICD 552. 15 September 2005. ICD 867. 20 January 2006. but this was overturned on appeal. For United States trade mark applications. the date of disclosure will be the date of publication. Filing a trade mark application is not considered to disclose any design shown in the application the design will be disclosed for RCD purposes only on publication of the trade mark application: Leng-D’Or SA v Frito-Lay Trading Company. Pictures included in a trade brochure and a magazine: Audi AG v Röder Zeltund Veranstaltungsservice GmbH. not the claimed date of first use: I-Feng Kao v Built NY Inc. ICD 1329. ICD 552. • • • • • • • • 13 . ICD 2483. 8 February 2006.. ICD 1568. ICD 594. 10 October 2006. which then registered the design as an RCD.

It is difficult to understand the basis of this decision without evidence that European toothbrush specialists in fact monitor Japanese Patent Office publications. that it could not reasonably have become known to the relevant circles. consider the position if an RCD is filed for the handle of a refrigerator and the prior disclosure is of a car door handle. leaving the onus on the RCD owner to prove that the disclosure was obscure. The car door handle could reasonably have become known to car designers in the EU. Similarly. for disclosures outside the EU. without dealing with the issue of obscurity. To us. but OHIM has assumed (imposed) this.For designs disclosed within the EU. holding it sufficient if the design had been exhibited at an important trade fair in China or advertised in the Chinese specialised press. or doesn’t satisfactorily meet its onus. but not to refrigerator designers. In this case. This suggests that the onus is on the RCD owner to show that the disclosure is not relevant. The reason given was that the trade volume between China and Europe is huge. This will also overly burden practitioners and tribunals. The issue in these cases is mostly the difficulty of evidencing the disclosure (see below at 4.4). if wealthy applicants for invalidity are able to scour the databases of the patent.2. However. RCDs protect across all sectors (the Locarno classification filed with the RCD is supposed to be irrelevant to its scope of protection). the Regulation provides that any disclosure is relevant except where the disclosure could not reasonably have become known to relevant circles in the EU. On an intuitive level. applicants for invalidity would be well advised simply to claim the disclosure.. If the RCD owner files no submissions. the decisions that consider the issue have. Who are the circles specialised in the sector? All bar one. the earlier designs could not be expected to become known to the circles concerned in the EU. if the refrigerator handle were allowed to stand as an RCD. and contrary to the intention of the Regulation. it could be enforced against the car door handle design owner who has prior rights. to date. (2) 14 . there appears to be little doubt that the disclosure will become known to the circles specialised in the sector. if. in our view. a design published by the Japanese Patent Office would “in the normal course of business” become known in the EU. trade mark and registered design offices of the world to find invalidating prior art. the earlier disclosed car handle design should be able to invalidate the later RCD for the fridge door handle. the Invalidity Division held that it was not necessary to provide evidence that the prior design had been marketed in Europe. in reality. 19 January 2006. which would it be? For example. for example. ICD 560. i. it is understandable that combustion engine designers in the EU may monitor USPTO publications. involved prior designs in the same “sector” as the RCD. In such circumstances. OHIM should accept the disclosure. In circumstances where the two “sectors” differ. Thus. in Kirschenhofer GmbH v WS Teleshop International Handels-GmbH. we believe (although not unanimously) that OHIM has been overly generous to foreign designers in finding that. two important issues require further clarification: (1) Who has the onus of proving lack of relevance of the disclosure? As written.e. It would be a great pity.

many have failed for not providing sufficient evidence of the prior disclosure. OHIM did not expressly decide the issue. As there is no hearing for invalidity applications. 15 . RCD Earlier Right 4.there is no taking of “judicial notice”.” In the absence of more detailed guidance the following pointers are offered from the first 300 decisions. even for very obvious prior designs well-known throughout the EU: Grupo Promer Mon-Graphic SA v PepsiCo Inc. a significant volume of different types of disclosure all failing to satisfy OHIM: see. ICD 842. practitioners may consider referencing earlier OHIM decisions in their invalidity application where evidence of disclosure may be in issue.2.4 Evidence of disclosure to the public Of those invalidity applications that have failed. Holding C Vlemmix BV v Evan Hellenberg Hubar. 1 July 2005. on occasion. Practitioners and applicants for invalidity must assess each piece of evidence filed to ensure it meets OHIM’s disclosure criteria. with. See also the obvious shell-design snack foods which were upheld in Leng-D’Or SA Industria v Recot Inc. evidence and arguments provided by the parties. ICD 180. 13 November 2006. as well as documents proving the earlier disclosure of those prior designs. ICD 149. OHIM has been somewhat idiosyncratic in its decisions relating to adequate evidence of disclosure. where the RCD for a toy car was invalidated by the prior design of a real car.The issue was considered by OHIM in Supermarked A/S v Ferrari SPA. ICD 1303. The decisions provide the following evidentiary pointers for practitioners on proving disclosure to the public: • The Invalidity Guidelines state: “the examination performed by the Invalidity Division is restricted to the facts. OHIM’s Guidelines for the Proceedings Relating to a Declaration of Invalidity of a Registered Community Design (the Invalidity Guidelines) obliquely indicate that the application for invalidity under Article 25(1)(b): “must contain an indication and reproduction of the prior design(s) that could form an obstacle to the novelty or individual character of the contested [RCD]. 23 March 2006. 8 September 2004.” OHIM will therefore not look outside the facts and evidence provided to it . The case has been appealed to the Board of Appeal. for a good example.

ICD 388. 16 February 2007. If the prior right is a CTM in a language other than the language of the RCD invalidity proceedings. which it sought to deny ever publishing. ICD 4190. ICD 2038. 30 August 2005. OHIM has recently expressly acknowledged the usefulness of the Wayback Machine as an independent institution giving credibility to search results: see Euro Fire AB v Tarnavva Sp z o o. 19 September 2005. ICD 735. 22 October 2007. the Board held that it undoubtedly refers to products put on the market in 2001.• Documentary evidence of prior rights should be submitted. ICD 1535. Early decisions suggested that the Invalidity Decision would not recognise the publication of catalogues because catalogues do not “bear any indication regarding to the specific time. ICD 2962. 20 February 2006. A copyright notice is not evidence of the date of disclosure: Flir System AB v Guangzhou Sat Infrared Technology Co Ltd. ICD 3648. A magazine article makes good evidence of disclosure of a design because “magazines are usually published and distributed”: Leng D’Or SA v Crown Confectionary Co Ltd. 11 December 2007. In that case. A sample bottle does not constitute evidence of a prior design “because it does not bear any indication of a date”: FORTE SWEDEN Sp z o o v Zaklad Produkcji Opakowan Rosinski i S-ka Sp z o o. ICD 2681. ICD 297. there is no need to submit a translation as OHIM will do that ex officio: Flex Equipos de Descanso SA v The Procter & Gamble Company. 26 July 2007. An alternative is to have a print out from the Internet certified by a notary: Prodir SA v Dariusz Libera. If the prior disclosure is an RCD. 23 April 2007. The decision in Kirschenhofer GmbH v WS Teleshop International HandelsGmbH. A catalogue accompanied by an affidavit demonstrating distribution of the catalogue in Germany. 10 October 2007. 8 May 2006. In considering a catalogue which stated “2001 collection”. 20 September 2005. written interrogatories of a witness 16 • • • • • • • . will be sufficient evidence of disclosure of the earlier design: Retsch Porzellan GmbH v Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd. The Board may have been influenced by the fact that the catalogue relied on was the RCD holder’s own catalogue. It was not fatal that only a copy of the catalogue was submitted. ICD 2756. 19 January 2006. OHIM will ex officio include a copy on the file: Built NY Inc v I-Feng Kao. ICD 560. Trying to prove the date of a webpage though the date of a hyperlink to it may not be sufficient: Leng D’Or SA v Frito-lay Trading Company. Case R 1401/2006-3. the place or the name of a person who would have received such a catalogue”: Andrzey Madrzyk v Wtadystaw Binda and Izabela Misterha. 3 December 2007. along with delivery notes for the product. ICD 3184. showing the date that the earlier design was made available to the public (although the date should not be written on the document by hand): Rodi Commercial SA v ISCA SpA. provides useful guidance on what evidence is not appreciated by OHIM. The Board of Appeal appears to have relaxed this draconian stance in Linea Hogar Deco SL v Venilia SA. it is not necessary to send a copy with the application for invalidity.

applicants for invalidity tread a narrow path. even if the evidence establishing what the named font looks like post-dates the filing of the RCD: Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG v Microsoft Corporation. but argued that the earlier font had not been disclosed to the public. • • • Some of the decisions appear to us to be counter-intuitive and/or pernickety. although 17 . Microsoft conceded the identity of the earlier font with the RCD. It is in any event clear that novelty and individual character. In this case. If OHIM considers they might. 1 December 2005.were found by OHIM to infringe the principle of “procedural economy”. 6 February 2006. The Board of Appeal in Daka Research Inc v Ampel 24 Vertriebs-GmbH & Co KG. the text portions of the document will be ignored. without accepting the deposed testimony of an officer of a party to invalidity proceedings. 20 February 2006. ICD 1014. 20 January 2006. In circumstances where applicants for invalidity are encouraged not to file masses of evidence. we would prefer (although not unanimously) OHIM to relax its distrust of witness statements made on behalf of parties to proceedings. For our part. it should allow cross-examination. 4. in our opinion. unhelpfully stated: “Both parties have addressed the issues of novelty and individual character jointly without striving to make a clear distinction between the two concepts. seemingly obvious evidence is ignored. Pictures included in a trade brochure and a magazine were held to be sufficient evidence that such a design for buildings was disclosed. ICD 941. 17 March 2006. The Board of Appeal’s acknowledgement that catalogues bearing a date are evidence of disclosure at that date is to be heartily welcomed. ICD 1535. but are not given the opportunity of a hearing or cross-examination of witnesses. Case R 196/2006-3. Sometimes. the correct approach. Affidavits will be accepted if they have the same effect as evidence under oath in the country in which they were drawn up: Retsch Porzellan GmbH v Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd. A receipt showing sale of a named font within the EU will be evidence of disclosure to the public. • Where a document is submitted in a language other than the language of the proceedings. It was not necessary to hear the offered witness to verify that the building was actually built before the date of the RCD: Audi AG v Röder Zelt-und Veranstaltungsservice GmbH.2. Documents which were not in the language of the proceedings were ignored. This is. but the image of the design and the date (if in numerals) will still be considered: Dryson AB v Birger Olsson.5 “New” versus “individual character” OHIM’s decisions separate the notions of novelty and of individual character. and should be separately considered. However. these are separate tests. ICD 743. a statutory declaration filed did not meet the formal requirements. Most deponents do not lie. Also. it is difficult to see how an entity could cost-effectively prove some prior disclosures.

” In our view. little is to be gained by conflating these two distinct concepts. ICD 1832. the decisions on novelty have involved designs that would be considered to be identical in the ordinary sense of that word. Case R 1456/2006-3. they cannot be identical. if two designs produce a different overall impression on the informed user.presented as separate requirements in Articles 4 to 6 CDR. in our view. having regard to the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design. there are certain differences between the two requirements. The Board simply has to decide whether two designs are identical. overlap to some extent. 26 April 2006. they will produce the same overall impression on the informed user.2. a radiator) will not be identical: Pictacs Limited v Kamil Korhan Karagülle. In spite of the overlap between novelty and individual character. The only area where difficulties of interpretation might arise is in relation to the term ‘immaterial details’. 2 August 2007: “Novelty is one ground of invalidity (see Article 5 CDR) and individual character is another (see Article 6 CDR). It is equally obvious that. Generally. the correct one. A design shall be considered new if no identical design has been made available to the public. 18 . The approach adopted by the Invalidity Division from the beginning of considering the two tests separately is. 2. Obviously. if two designs are identical except in immaterial details.” 4. The Board is required to take into account the overall impression on the informed user. This point was made clearly by a later Board of Appeal in Imperial International Limited v Handl Cookware Limited. Where there have been some minor differences. The test for novelty is essentially of an objective nature. Designs shall be deemed to be identical if their features differ only in immaterial details. the decisions establish that concepts of identity imported from trade mark law do not apply to RCDs: • A design which is a mirror image of an earlier design (in this case.6 “New” Article 5 of the Regulation provides: Article 5 1. The test for individual character is less straightforward and is likely to give rise to slightly more subjective appraisals.

the designs were held to be identical: Saulespurens v SIA Scruples. 19 . In a later series of cases involving the same Rapporteur. If the representation of the RCD includes trade marks. the difference only in labels (“Blue” v “RS” on a microphone) was held to be an “immaterial detail”. ICD 1329. RCD Earlier Right We prefer the reasoning in Ampel to that in Saulespurens. a product made to the design that includes trade marks may still be “identical”. Different trade marks are unlikely to be an immaterial detail. and. 1 December 2005. these form part of the RCD and must be considered when assessing novelty.RCD Earlier Right • Different colours and trade marks on a machine made to the design may render the designs not identical: Ampel 24 Vertriebs-GmbH & Co KG v Daka Research Inc. 23 August 2006. thus. ICD 8671. If the RCD is filed without trade marks.

2. the first question to ask is: the informed user of what? If an RCD for a toy car is challenged by the owner of a prior design for a real car. for example. Many of the decisions use the expression “the informed user is familiar with [the object the subject of the design]”. the expression “the informed user is familiar with [the object the subject of the design]” is modified. ICD842.2. In Santiago Pons Quintana SA v Alfiere SpA. The informed user of a dog chew product was found to be able to distinguish between a five-pointed star and a four-pointed cross. 13 November 2006. 20 December 2005. a case involving “metal plates for games”. finding merely that the informed user is familiar with designs of dolls: Aktiebolaget Design Rubens v Bäcklund. Occasionally. The issue of who the informed user is has been clarified in part by the Board of Appeal in PepsiCo Inc v Grupo Promer Mon-Graphic SA. no indication is given as to whether the informed user is. so the point does not appear to have been argued: see Dansk Supermarked A/S v Ferrari SPA. should be interpreted consistently each time it is used.7 “Individual character” Article 6 of the Regulation provides: Article 6 1. However. 20 . In relation to validity (Article 6). in Recital 14 and in Articles 16 and 10. OHIM held that the informed user of ice cream cakes is familiar with the basic characteristics of ice cream cakes and aware of the wide range of designs and models that exist. A design shall be considered to have individual character if the overall impression it produces on the informed user differs from the overall impression produced on such a user by any design which has been made available to the public. we submit. only one of the decisions involved prior art from a different field. in Unilever NV v Ice Cream Factory Comaker SA. Who is the “informed user”? The expression “informed user” appears three times in the Regulation. ICD 2434. suggesting that the informed user is not a dog: Mars UK Ltd v Paragon Products BV. ICD 1410. Case R 1001/2005-3. is the “informed user” the user of the toy car or the real car? It is clear from the decisions that the informed user is the informed user of the product that is the subject of the RCD. 27 October 2006. an adult (purchaser) or a child (user). It is therefore a legal construct of some importance.4.7. ICD 2525. and. 4. For example.1 In assessing individual character. 7 March 2007. … 2. the informed user of boots was defined as someone who is familiar with boots and knows the limitations imposed by shape and function. 29 August 2006. ICD 461. the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design shall be taken into consideration. In a case about dolls. 29 March 2007.

It is not “a person skilled in the art”. the informed user could be a marketing manager in a company that makes biscuits or potato snacks. occasional user. “(17) It makes little difference which of these categories of person is treated as the informed user. in relation to an “internalcombustion engine” for a lawnmower: “The informed user is someone who wants to use a lawnmower to cut the grass in his [sic] garden. For our part.RCD Earlier Right The Board of Appeal said: “(16) The informed user of the products in question could be a number of different persons. 8 October 2007. visiting specialised stores. The appellant proved by means of documents annexed to its reply that it has been marketing its tazos since 1995 and that Spanish newspapers were talking about tazomania as early as 1998. the informed user is what the Regulation says – an informed user. downloading information from the Internet. Nor is it a casual observer. the Board of Appeal said. or a designer. It could be a child in the approximate age range of 5 to 10 years. needs for example to buy one and has become “informed” on the subject by browsing through catalogues of lawnmowers. etc. garden centres. 21 . or a “moron in a hurry”. The point is that both will be familiar with the phenomenon of rappers.” In Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v Kwang Yang Motor Co Ltd. Alternatively. since the products are promotional items intended for young children. or an expert in the field. RCD Earlier Right Both these cases have been appealed to the CFI. since these are the typical products which are promoted by giving away small flat disks known in Spanish as tazos and in English as ‘rappers’ or ‘pogs’. Case R1337/2006-3.

In our opinion. and in particular the industrial sector to which it belongs and the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design. The larger the degree of freedom. the early approach adopted by the Invalidity Division of merely saying “the informed user is familiar with [the object the subject of the design]” is flawed. She/he is a user. not a designer or manufacturer. However. the particular industrial sector to which the design belongs. That might be correct if the discussion were extended to all types of promotional items. A rapper that does not possess these characteristics is unlikely to be accepted in the marketplace. the informed user is more than familiar with the object the subject of the design. She/he is aware of the design corpus.” 22 .Who the informed user is will differ from product to product: the informed user of a ballet slipper may well be a different theoretical entity to the informed user of a scientific instrument or a household item. and the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design. The Board of Appeal provided some clarity in PepsiCo: “(20) At this point something needs to be said about the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design.2. 30 August 2005. Recital 14 of the Regulation provides some assistance: “The assessment as to whether a design has individual character should be based on whether the overall impression produced on an informed user viewing the design clearly differs from that produced on him by the existing design corpus. The issue then is what degree of freedom the designer enjoys if his brief is to design a promotional item in the nature of a rapper. The contested decision ruled that the degree of freedom of a designer of promotional items is limited only in so far as these items must be inexpensive. taking into consideration the nature of the product to which the design is applied or in which it is incorporated. even if theoretically. namely tazos or rappers.2 Design freedom The degree of freedom available to the designer appears to impact significantly on the informed user in assessing what overall impression the design in issue will create: Rodi Comercial SA v ISCA SpA. not using. the attempts of the Board of Appeal to give the informed user personality. the more differences will be required to create a different overall impression on the informed user. Similarly. the design. but the overall impression is from viewing. safe for children and fit to be added to the promoted products.7. ICD 297. A designer working within these constraints has little freedom. so that a noise will be made if a child’s finger presses the centre of the disk. 4.” In our opinion. It follows that even relatively small differences suffice to create a different overall impression. this case is about a particular type of promotional item. Obviously if the matter is approached in that light the designer’s freedom is severely constricted. The contested RCD and the respondent’s RCD belong indisputably to that category. following the recital. The paradigm for this type of product is a small flat or nearly flat disk on which coloured images can be printed. Often the disk will be curved toward the centre. are excessive.

one very close to the edge and the other approximately one third of the way from the edge to the centre. If the design is viewed in profile it appears that the concentric circle situated close to the edge is intended to convey the idea that the disk curls over all the way round the edge. 27 October 2006. 27 April 2004. In Eredu S Coop v Arrmet SRL. The other concentric circle is intended to convey the idea that the central area of the disk is raised slightly. The process for assessing overall impression has been the subject of comment. and worthy of attention at the time evidence is filed in invalidity proceedings. ICD 0024.2.” In PepsiCo Inc v Grupo Promer Mon-Graphic SA. 4. bearing in mind the limited freedom of the designer in developing the design. The raised part is flat and extends over at least two-thirds of the surface area of the disk. 23 . (23) The contested RCD has two additional concentric circles when compared with the respondent’s RCD. the Board is in a position to compare the contested RCD and the respondent’s RCD with a view to deciding whether they produce the same overall impression on the informed user. respectively. To assess the overall impression. even small differences in relation to earlier designs may be sufficient to endow the design with individual character. Presumably this means that if the designer had relatively little freedom in developing the design.” The scope of design freedom is an essential element of the invalidity test. 1 December 2005. Case R 1001/2005-3. The true significance of these additional concentric circles only becomes apparent when the disk is viewed in profile.3 “Overall impression” The majority of decisions of invalidity under Article 25(1)(b) rest on a finding that the RCD creates the same overall impression on the informed user as the “prior design/s”. the Board of Appeal provided an example of how overall impression should be assessed: “(21) Having clarified the above points. The respondent’s disk. Case R 196/2006-3. when it noted: “The Board is required to take into account the overall impression on the informed user. (22) Both the designs consist of small disks that are almost flat. when seen from above. especially on account of technical constraints. OHIM said: “Article 10(1) CDR requires the assessment of the overall impression produced by the prior design and the CD on the informed user. They are intended to show that the raised area is not flat but slopes upward in the direction of the centre.This was again emphasised by the Board of Appeal in Daka Research Inc v Ampel 24 Vertriebs-GmbH & Co KG. having regard to the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design.7. has two concentric circles. the designs must be compared both on their various features taken individually and on the weight of the various features according to their influence on the overall impression.

was clearly not adopting a test of point-by-point comparison.(24) The difference in the contours of the raised area in the centre of the disks can hardly be dismissed as insignificant. but it should not form a significant part of the assessment of “overall impression”. in particular. It changes the appearance of the disks in a manner that will not go unnoticed by an observant user. The Regulation. The features which differ are not sufficiently different in appearance or in importance to change the impression given by the main elements. and further guidance from the CFI and ECJ is urgently required. base. When comparing the designs. 8 October 2007. the Board of Appeal overturned the Invalidity Division on the basis of its “excessively detailed analysis of the various components of the two designs” and noted: “By describing these details. that difference in the profile of the two designs is sufficient to mean that they produce a different overall impression on the informed user. OHIM said this when assessing overall impression of designs for air fresheners: Registered Community Design 431661-0001 Community Trade Mark 91991 and International Registration 328915 “In the present case. in adopting a test of “overall impression”. ICD 3630.. Given the limited freedom of the designer in developing the design. in Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v Kwang Yang Motor Co Ltd. the informed user comes to the conclusion that the RCD and the prior design are not identical. which was the prior national law in some member states. The features which are common and different have been exposed …. trunk. the structure of the crown. Case R 1337/2006-3. the one disclosed as an “IR” in 1967. but their most important visual parts do not give a different overall impression: the shape inspired by a fir tree. the common colour and the presence of verbal elements in both are all similar features in the RCD and the prior design.. the overall impression produced on the informed user by the RCD does not differ from the overall impression produced by the prior designs … and. We concede that a point-by-point comparison is helpful in assessing novelty. the contested decision lost the broader perspective of the ‘overall impression’ and failed to notice the essence. this is the hardest part of the Regulation to apply with accuracy and consistency.” In our view. 7 November 2007. Indeed. the configuration of the tree in three predominantly visual parts – crown. particularly since the designer of the RCD had the freedom to choose any 24 .” In a more recent decision in Julius Sämann Ltd v Jees SRO.

i. Therefore. the overall impression of the RCD is not different from that of the prior design. Maybe this information was on the file but not referred to in the decision: maybe it simply reflects the experience of the panellists. Despite the freedom of the designer. a spotlight and a lateral device. it chose to use such shape. Even though the three basic elements are shaped slightly differently and contain some distinguishing details.” (emphasis added). to resemble an existing one. where the following designs were compared. 3 April 2007. a bar. derived from the function of the product. 25 . simply shaped sleek stand-alone wireless lighting very different from the usual lamp shapes known for garden lighting. but it recalls the overall impression of the prior design.” See also the reasoning given in J Wagner GmbH v Hughes Marie Sanoner. 15 May 2007: RCD Earlier Right “Considering the freedom of the designer in developing the design of this type of outdoor stand-alone wireless lightings and the scarce prior art for this type of lighting. ICD 3168. ICD 2178.shape without any need. which are arranged in a specific way in so far as the spotlight is situated over the lateral element on the top of the bar. As observed correctly by the Applicant. as a result of the use of the same type of shape (that of a fir tree) with common features. including verbal elements. A further example comes from Honda Giken Kogyo KK v Wuxi Kipor Power Co Ltd. which was already anticipated by the prior design disclosed as early as 1967. Therefore. the characteristic features of the challenged RCD are all present in the prior designs. the RCD lacks individual character in the meaning of Article 6. the impression produced on the informed user by the RCD does not differ from the overall impressions produced by the raised prior designs ….e. However. Nothing in the decision indicates that there was evidence of “scarce prior art for this type of lighting” or evidence of “the usual lamp shapes known for garden lighting”. the overall impression produced by the RCD is not different. The designer was not limited to use such type of shape when designing the RCD. configuration and shape of the lighting having three elements with almost the same proportions and placement. All the designs consist of the same three basic elements. an informed user will appreciate the basically same construction. The RCD and the prior designs raised all give the same overall impression of a modern.

they produce different overall impressions. 14 March 2007: RCD Earlier Right “The informed user is aware of the variety of tea packaging in so far that he knows that it is mostly made of paper with certain proportions and dimensions. the characteristic features of the RCD are all present in the prior design. Thus. The variations concerning inter alia the form of the handle or the form of the area for the switches and plugs do not alter the fact that both designs produce the same overall impression on the informed user. the housing is of cubic form with black panels enclosing the central portion of a lighter colour. different arrangement of the graphical elements on the significant sides of the packaging and the intense 26 . Although the prior design and the RCD both contain the two large black Chinese characters as well as the cup of tea. namely the sides with the larger surface for the graphical elements to be placed on them. Therefore they do not influence the overall impression of the informed user like the well visible elements in the brighter parts in the middle of the housing. he focuses his attention to the significant front sides of the tea packaging. the ginger plant. because of different significant figurative elements of honeycomb in [the prior design] and ginger roots and germs in the RCD. mostly the higher and the lower front side of the packaging. marks and other inscriptions. In both cases. images and other graphical elements placed on it are necessary to help identify the type of tea contained in it.RCD Earlier Right OHIM said: “As observed correctly by the Applicant. OHIM said this in Beata Hołdrowicz PANACEUM Import-Export v Bożena Lewicka SZI-BO Export-Import ICD 2210.” For an example of the comparison made in relation to “knock-off” or copycat packaging. He knows that the inscriptions. Most of the differing features are situated in the darker parts of the design.

namely [the prior design] produces an overall impression of a structured graphical design. 20 December 2005. whereas the RCD produces an overall impression of a much more colourful and figurative design. ICD 2467. ICD 461. a two-dimensional cloth pattern will create a different overall impression than a three-dimensional form made from the cloth: Burberry Limited v Jimmy Meykranz. ICD3630. Burberry owned a CTM as shown: RCD Burberry’s CTM but was unsuccessful in invalidating the RCD for the handbag on the basis of Article 25(1)(b). Due to these differences the two designs produce different overall impressions on the informed user.orange colour of the RCD in comparison to black and white colours of [the prior design]. and is therefore not taken into account in assessing overall impression.” The first 300 decisions make the following points: • Generally. 1 December 2006. the fact that the doll shown in the RCD would perform differently to the doll shown in the earlier disclosure was not to be considered. 20 February 2006. • The indication of the product in the RCD is not to form part of the assessment of overall impression because it is not a feature of the design: Retsch Porzellan GmbH v Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd. ICD 1535. albeit that the verbal elements were different: Julius Sämann Ltd v Jees SRO. In that case. 7 November 2007. The “presence of verbal elements” on the design for an air-freshener in the shape of a tree was held to be a “similar feature” in the RCD and the prior disclosure. • • 27 . In Aktiebolaget Design Rubens v Bäcklund. The behaviour of a product whilst in use is not part of the appearance of the product. Burberry may have had greater success under Article 25(1)(e) or Article 25(1)(f).

The mere fact that a technical effect can be achieved another way is sufficient not to invalidate an RCD. Accepting the invalidity applicant’s position. according to Recital 10 of the Regulation. 20 November 2007. ICD 1964. 28 . The argument that a product made to the design can be mounted in different ways did not save the RCD. This Article is included to prevent what would amount to patent protection being offered by the Regulation. Again. ICD 3150. In UES AG v Nordson Corporation. and they add little to our understanding of the scope of the Article. environmentally or otherwise disadvantageous. Only three (related) decisions have considered the Article. ICD 990. The requirement in the Regulation refers to “solely” dictated by technical function: the test adopted by OHIM in the few decisions that have considered Article 8(1) reflects that. or financially.4. to guarantee that the interoperability of products of different modes is not hindered by extending protection to the design of mechanical fittings.5 Article 8(2) Article 8(2) of the Regulation provides: A Community Design shall not subsist in features of appearance of a product which must necessarily be reproduced in their exact form and dimensions in order to permit the product in which the design is incorporated or to which it is applied to be mechanically connected to or placed in. there are surprisingly few decisions that reference this Article. or more expensive. 4. 12 September 2006. the “must fit” exception. OHIM held that the features of the RCD must be “reproduced in their exact form and dimensions to fit a given device”. or if the designer “had choice among various forms”: HK Ruokatalo Group Oyj v Atria Yhtyma Oyj. In effect. If the function of the object made to the design can be achieved by alternative designs. so that the aspects of the design solely dictated by technical function are not considered for the purposes of invalidity: see Honda Giken Kogyo KK v Kwang Yang Motor Co Ltd. 17 August 2006.4 Article 8(1) Article 8(1) of the Regulation provides: A Community Design shall not subsist in features of appearance of a product which are solely dictated by its technical function. around or against another product so that either product may perform its function. even if the other way of achieving the effect may be significantly more difficult. 3 April 2007. ICD 2970. the RCD was filed for “fluid distribution equipment”. Article 8(1) will not apply: Lindner Recyclingtech GmbH v Lars Fransson. was introduced. the result has been to “read down” the protection offered by RCDs. Article 8(2). which was declared invalid.

29 . the right holder is not entitled to the Community design under Article 14. the RCD was not visible during normal use (Article 4(2)(a)). 4. As the RCD was invalidated on the basis of Article 8(2). Rejected applications are not published.9 Article 25(1)(c) Article 25(1)(c) of the Regulation provides: Article 25 1.6 Article 8(3) Article 8(3) of the Regulation provides: Notwithstanding paragraph 2. although it is understood OHIM has rejected RCD applications on this basis during absolute grounds examination.RCD Invalidity was also argued on the basis of the design being dictated solely by technical function (Article 8(1)) and that. these other grounds were not considered. 4. No RCD has been challenged under this Article. as a component part of a complex product. so there is no way of checking. a Community design shall under the conditions set out in Articles 5 and 6 subsist in a design serving the purpose of allowing the multiple assembly or connection of mutually interchangeable products within a modular system. 4.8 4. No decision has considered the meaning of this article. A Community design may be declared invalid only in the following cases: … (c) if.7 Article 9 Article 9 of the Regulation provides: A Community design shall not subsist in a design which is contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality. by virtue of a court decision.

OJ EU L 386/14 of 29 December 2006 as follows: (d) if the Community design is in conflict with a prior design which has been made available to the public after the date of filing of the application or. Article 25(1)(d) appears designed to protect the position of an owner who files for an RCD (or. A Community design may be declared invalid only in the following cases: … (d) if the Community design is in conflict with a prior design which has been made available to the public after the date of filing of the application or.Article has only been substantially considered in one decision: ISS Manufacturing Limited v Christian M Andersen. ICD 2855. and which is protected from a date prior to the said date by a registered Community design or an application for such a design. adopted in Geneva on 2 July 1999. the date of priority of the Community design. a national design right or design application under the Hague Convention) without making it available to the public and a third party then files a 30 . or by a registered design right of a Member State. the date of priority of the Community design. or by an application for such a right. if the priority is claimed. or by an application for such a right. However. as no evidence of any court decision was adduced.10 Article 25(1)(d) Article 25(1)(d) of the Regulation was originally as follows: Article 25 1. and which is protected from a date prior to the said date: by a registered Community design or an application for such a design. the invalidity application failed. (i) or (ii) or (iii) by a registered design right of a Member State. Article 25(1)(d) was amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 891/2006 of 18 December 2006. now. which was approved by Council Decision 954/2006 and which has effect in the Community. if a priority is claimed. by a design right registered under the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement concerning the international registration of industrial designs. hereinafter referred to as “the Geneva Act”. 6 November 2006. or by an application for such a right. 4.

have deprived the later design of individual character within the meaning of Article 6 CDR.” Thus. The decisions suggest: 31 . 4. if it had been made available to the public before the filing date (the priority date) of the later design. for the purposes of Article 25(1)(d). Article 25(1)(b) applied. In other words a conflict exists when the earlier design would. However. Article 25(1)(d) was the basis for PepsiCo Inc v Grupo Promer Mon-Graphic SA. and the jurisprudence under that Article presumably applies. 24 July 2007 shows the limited opportunities for the application of Article 25(1)(d): the prior design was filed on 2 November 2006 and the RCD was published six weeks later on 15 December 2006. Article 25(1)(d) may be of greater practical use where publication of a prior design is deferred. and Community law or the law of the Member State governing that sign confers on the right holder of the sign the right to prohibit such use. The Invalidity Division took the view that a conflict arises when two designs produce the same overall impression on the informed user. the assessment under Article 25(1)(d) is relevantly identical to that under Article 25(1)(b). The Board of Appeal stated: “(14) The term ‘in conflict with’ in Article 25(1)(d) is not defined in the legislation. which appears to provide a remedy for prior trade mark owners. Case R 1001/2005-3. As the earlier application has not been published at the date the later application was filed.11 Article 25(1)(e) Article 25(1)(e) of the Regulation provides: Article 25 1. but not Article 25(1)(d). It may in addition be noted that a conflict would also exist. ICD 3622. A Community design may be declared invalid only in the following cases: … (e) if a distinctive sign is used in a subsequent design.similar design prior to publication of the earlier application. Given the (current) rapidity with which OHIM publishes RCD applications. 27 October 2006. or in relation to national registered design applications which are slower to publish. That interpretation has been accepted by both the parties and is clearly correct. it has not been made available to the public and therefore does not form part of the “prior art” for the purposes of invalidating the later RCD. SIACO SA v VAPESOL LDA. Comparatively few applications for invalidity have been made under Article 25(1)(e). as the prior design had been published on 21 November 2006 (three weeks after publication and four weeks prior to the RCD application). if the two designs were identical within the meaning of Article 5 CDR.

it is likely this article was intended to deal with invalidity based on trade mark protection. 1 March 2006. but OHIM remedied the omission by concluding that the relevant article would be Article 9 of the Community Trade Mark Regulation. No assistance is given in the Recitals as to how this article is to be interpreted. 26 July 2007. Where the earlier trade mark includes a device element not reproduced in the RCD. 26 July 2007. ICD 2426. since the design of a logo intrinsically relates to any type of goods and services under Article 5(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Directive: Hee Jung Kim v Zellweger Analytics Limited. 24 August 2006. 27 October 2005. 24 January 2007. a German trade mark registration) and determine if the RCD would (in this case. in light of Article 25(1)(f) dealing with invalidity based on copyright protection. However. ICD 3028. In Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v Mustapha Bouzekri. the CTM owner (Calvin Klein) had not cited the basis of the law that protected its trade mark. ICD 2947. 20 December 2006 is a good example: Danone was able to invalidate an RCD for packaging that clearly included Danone’s famous trade mark. A two-dimensional RCD consisting of the design of a logo which is identical with a prior trade mark (in this case an International Registration designating several EU Member States) was declared invalid. Section 8(2) No 1 of the German Trade Marks Act: C Josef Lamy GmbH v Sanford LP. infringe the earlier right: Schwan-STABILO v Ningbo Beifa Group Co Ltd. because distinctiveness of that sign was examined pursuant to Section 37(1). • • • The decisions under this Article cause us considerable unrest.• The Invalidity Division will form its own view on the scope of protection provided by the earlier right (in this case. Similarly. ICD 1477. as a question of German national trade mark law). ICD 362. ICD 2756. A prior German three-dimensional trade mark registration is assumed to be a distinctive sign according to Article 25(1)(e). Compagnie Gervais Danone SA v Zygmunt Piotrowski. the invalidity application will fail: Flex Equipos de Descanso SA v The Procter & Gamble Company. ICD 2756. a registered CTM is deemed to be a “distinctive sign”: Flex Equipos de Descanso SA v The Procter & Gamble Company. There was no suggestion that expert evidence had been filed: OHIM appeared competent to rule on an issue of German national trade mark law. 32 .

the Invalidity Division invalidated the RCD shown on the basis of an International trade mark registration for the word MIDAS. Similarly. The Board of Appeal confirmed the Invalidity Division’s finding: Zygmunt Piotrowski v Compagnie Gervais Danone SA. 26 July 2007. Case R 137/2007-3. registered with respect to household appliances (among other things). 1 March 2006. ICD 2756. RCD Earlier Right The Invalidity Division’s reasoning was as follows: 33 . which fell within the scope of Danone’s trade mark protection. The earlier right did not invalidate the RCD. 18 September 2007. we consider OHIM has gone beyond the meaning of the Regulation. also referred to above.RCD Earlier Right The invalidated design clearly depicted a beverage product. In Hee Jung Kim v Zellweger Analytics Limited. ICD 1477. seems sensible: the registered device trade mark and the design were different. the Flex Equipos de Descanso v The Procter & Gamble Company. even though both contained the word FLEX. taken to the next step. referred to above. RCD Earlier Right However.

providing rights of exclusive use for the RCD holder within the territory of the EU. where does the MIDAS decision end? Can the word APPLE. Marks without reputation are not protected as against any use. RCDs provide a form of registration of designs. only use which is likely to confuse consumers (confusion being assumed where identical marks are used on identical goods). even when used descriptively for the fruit. In our view (although not unanimously). ownership of an RCD is not a defence to infringement of any intellectual property right). trade mark law provides protection for distinctive signs in relation to goods or services that are identical or similar. 324371-0072 or 553276-0002. MIDAS. The trade mark owner is entitled to prevent third parties from using in the course of trade any sign which is identical with the trade mark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which the trade mark is registered. 324371. it would be perfectly possible for the MIDAS IR and the MIDAS RCD to co-exist. not invalidity of the RCD. being registered.0056. Were the RCD to be so used. Thus. The use of MIDAS in the RCD is a use identical to the trade mark. Examples would be RCDs 251442-0011. the goods to which the use of the sign in the RCD relates are identically included in the list of goods for which the IR is registered. Taken to its (il)logical conclusion. An RCD does not provide a right to use: it only provides the right to prevent others from using (that is. the remedy is in trade mark infringement. 34 .• Under the Trade Marks Directive. Ignoring for the moment trade marks with reputation. 251442-0019. The RCD is a logo design “which intrinsically relates to any type of goods and services … therefore. invalidate all RCDs that include the word APPLE. registered for computers. 3 May 2007. The Board of Appeal agreed: Honeywell Analytics Limited v Hee Jung Kim. so long as the MIDAS RCD is not used for goods/services similar to those for which the IR is registered. was presumed to be a distinctive sign. Case R609/2006-3. a trade mark must be a sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. the decision is wrong.” • • • • The Invalidity Division invalidated the RCD.

for example. enabling its owner to invalidate a multitude of logo RCDs. take unfair advantage of. It is to be hoped that the ECJ will significantly narrow the interpretation of this Article. trading names or. it should be necessary to prove that use of the design shown in the RCD would. so the entitlement under national law to prevent the use in a small corner of the EU would be enough to invalidate the RCD. the laws of passing off could be used. without due cause. a national trade mark could be acquired for just about any word. Similarly. It should be remembered that Article 25(1)(e) extends beyond trade marks to “distinctive signs”. the trade mark law criteria requiring identity or similarity of goods/services must also be met for an RCD to be invalidated. 4. A Community design may be declared invalid only in the following cases: 35 . this would contradict the requirements in the Regulation that the indication of the design does not affect the RCD’s scope of protection. For marks with reputation. letter or combination of letters. even if there is no real commercial conflict.251442-0011 251442-0019 324371-0056 324371-0072 5532760002 What about trade mark registrations for single letters or small groups of letters? It must be borne in mind that. but not otherwise. can OHIM’s logic be avoided simply by filing the RCD in a Locarno Class other than 99? If so. This will be the case where the goods/services are apparent on the face of the RCD. There is no requirement in the Regulation that the trade mark be filed earlier than the RCD. Thus. given the many languages of the EU.12 Article 25(1)(f) Article 25(1)(f) of the Regulation provides: Article 25 1. On OHIM’s reasoning. as in the Danone case. or be detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark. shop signs. In our opinion. even if the “distinctive sign” is only of local significance. an RCD for a logo could be used throughout the EU for any goods or services.

The onus of proving invalidity lies within the copyright owner. the earlier design was claimed to be protected under copyright law. for copyright to subsist. the design must be original. The RCD holder had also submitted a court judgment between the parties recognising the lack of originality in the earlier design. ICD 1451. The Article 25(1)(f) grounds failed because. in Germany) if the RCD is not a copy of the prior work.13 Article 25(1)(g) provides: Article 25 1. The Invalidity Division will not examine whether the prior work was granted copyright protection (in this case. the application for invalidity succeeded under Article 25(1)(b). Article 25(1)(g) • 4. From the cases. 20 January 2006. SA. The differences that were deemed to be sufficient for the RCD being not identical and of individual character were also held to be sufficient to hold that the RCD was not a copy of the prior work: Audi AG v Röder Zeltund Veranstaltungsservice GmbH. it is apparent that: • In 5th Avenue Designs Division of Covington Industries v Alhambra Internacional. A copy of the certificate issued by the United States Copyright Office was filed as evidence. 36 . Few of the cases reviewed relied on this ground.… (f) if the design constitutes an unauthorised use of a work protected under the copyright law of a Member State. No invalidity applications have sought to rely on this Article. However. it was held that the certificate from the USCO was inadequate to prove originality. emblems and escutcheons other than those covered by the said Article 6 ten and which are of particular public interest in a Member State. A Community design may be declared invalid only in the following cases: … (g) if the design constitutes an improper use of any of the items listed in Article 6 ten of the “Paris Convention” for the Protection of Industrial Property … or of badges. In this case. but on other grounds. under Spanish copyright law. OHIM invalidated the RCD. 18 January 2007. ICD 1014.

if a party pleads a ground of invalidity. Louis Vuitton and Calvin Klein jointly applied to invalidate RCDs owned by Mustapha Bouzekri where the RCDs contained elements of prior rights owned by both fashion houses. before considering Article 25(1)(b). 25(1)(a) first. Equipamientos y Materiales Deportivos. v Benito Julian Jerez Melendez Miguel Angel Gutiez Aguerri. S. If the Invalidity Division has already determined the issues. This is also inconsistent with other decisions that have dealt with the various grounds not in the order they appear in the Regulation (see. one ground of invalidity is set aside. the applicant for invalidity specifically requested that OHIM consider invalidity based on Article 25(1)(e) first. then 25(1)(b). 7 November 2007. In Forte Sweden Sp zoo v Zaktad Produkcji Opakowan Rosinski I S-ka 37 . but not on the grounds it requested. • More than one applicant may jointly apply for invalidity. as a question of procedural fairness and judicial politeness. the additional grounds may be of assistance to an applicant in a wider dispute and OHIM’s findings may assist in resolving a wider controversy. if on appeal. Third. the others may still stand.) It will. First. referrals back and forth with the Board of Appeal will be avoided.e. Registered Community Design 359724-0001 Community Trade Marks 15602 and 66753 • In Julius Sämann Ltd v Jees SRO. an applicant for invalidity is. Miscellaneous The following findings may also be of some assistance to practitioners. the Invalidity Guidelines or the Regulation to justify this approach: in our view. However. RCD 359724-0001 was a combination of Louis Vuitton’s CTM 15602 and Calvin Klein’s CTM 66753: see Louis Vuitton Malletier and Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v Mustapha Bouzekri. ICD 2087.5. always be an issue of balancing procedural efficiency and judicial economy with the interests of the parties. it should be dealt with. i. for the filing fee. 19 September 2006. There is nothing in the decision. the applicant for invalidity got the order it wanted. it must examine them in the order in which they appear in the Regulation. of course. • Ticking the wrong box on OHIM’s form when applying for invalidity is not fatal. In a series of decisions. for example. ICD 3630. entitled to request that OHIM consider all the grounds for invalidity raised. Second. OHIM refused to do so. ruling that where one or more grounds is claimed.L. the following reasons may be appropriately argued if an applicant seeks a ruling on more than one article. then 25(1)(c) etc. ICD 3077. For example. 26 January 2007. In this case.

• Similarly. ICD 2764. whereas the evidence and arguments submitted related to Article 25(1)(b). a mistaken reference to invalidity under the “Design Directive” (as opposed to the Regulation) was not fatal: WS Teleshop International Handels GmbH v Homeland Housewares LLC. the invalidity applicant ticked the box challenging validity under Article 3(a). according to the Board of Appeal. ICD 0990. Case R 1456/2006-3. Indeed. 26 July 2007. All invalidated designs were invalidated in their entirety. OHIM considered the application on the basis of Article (25)(1)(b). 2 August 2007. the statement “not novel” was held to be a sufficient identification of the grounds of invalidity. OHIM should be encouraged rapidly to adopt electronic filing for invalidity applications. 2 August 2007. 17 August 2006. the losing party has been ordered to bear the costs of the winning party. In a decision of the Board of Appeal. contrary to the Invalidity Guidelines. Given the apparently large number of mistakes made by practitioners in using OHIM’s form. there were no partial invalidations. the Invalidity Division’s statement “no significant difference can be discerned” between the designs did not. 10 October 2007. the Invalidity Division’s reasoning was held to be “manifestly insufficient”: Imperial International Limited v Handl Cookware Limited. ICD 0529. Case R 1001/2005-3. In all cases. 18 January 2007. 15 September 2005. Case R 1456/2006-3. ICD 1451. • • • • • • 38 . ICD 3648. do sufficient justice to the six pages of “detailed observations” submitted. 27 October 2006.Sp zoo. Bad faith is not a ground of invalidity: PepsiCo Inc v Grupo Promer Mon-Graphic SA. In that decision of the Board of Appeal. In that case. it is not necessary at all to tick a box on OHIM’s form: Imperial International Limited v Handl Cookware Limited. 5th Avenue Design Division of Covington Industries Inc v Alhambra Internacional SA. The Invalidity Division will grant a two-month extension of time for the RCD holder to file observations supporting the validity of the RCD: Honda Giken Kogyo KK v Kwang Yang Motor Co Ltd. Evidence not filed in the language of the proceedings and not translated within two months of the filing of the evidence will be disregarded: Flex Equipos de Descanso SA v The Proctor & Gamble Company.

25(1) (d) RCD invalid 23/05/08 ICD 4679 226030001 Schalbau GmbH Albright France SARL Art. KG Art.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . Xoya Limited & Co. Applicant Result 26/05/08 AS Hallik ICD 3937 6360710001 Vaasan & Vaasan Oy Art. RCD No. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 26/05/08 AS Hallik ICD 3937 6360710002 Vaasan & Vaasan Oy Art. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 26/05/08 ICD 4158 4890750001 Apple Inc.

o.o. Concept-s Ladenbau & Objektdesign GmbH Art. RCD No.o.o. Concept-s Ladenbau & Objektdesign GmbH Art.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 22/05/08 ICD 4265 3587910002 Presenta Nova d.o. Concept-s Ladenbau & Objektdesign GmbH Art. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 .o. Applicant Result 23/05/08 ICD 4281 3587910004 Presenta Nova d.o. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 22/05/08 ICD 4257 3587910001 Presenta Nova d. Concept-s Ladenbau & Objektdesign GmbH Art.o. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 23/05/08 ICD 4273 3587910003 Presenta Nova d.

25(1) (b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 . RCD No.o.o.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. Applicant Result 06/05/08 ICD 3143 3015510001 Knauf S.C. 25(1) (b) Invalidity application rejected 04/04/08 ICD 4422 7169070002 Presenta Nova d. CMCS Group Plc Art. Art. Concept-s Ladenbau & Objektdesign GmbH Art.N. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 22/04/08 NO IMAGE Valter Nagy ICD 4448 2586030001 MW 93 Ipari Kereskedelmi é s Szolgáltató Kft. 25(1) (b) Invalidity application rejected 02/04/08 NO IMAGE ICD 4760 7209410001 Pangyrus Limited RSVP Design Limited NO IMAGE Art.

o. Applicant Result 31/03/08 Věra Šindelářová ICD 4554 6090780001 J.r. RCD No. Blažek Sklo Podebrady s. Blažek Sklo Podebrady s. Blažek Sklo Podebrady s. Art.o.r. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . Art.r. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 31/03/08 ICD 4588 5429150002 J. Blažek Sklo Podebrady s. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 31/03/08 ICD 4570 5429150001 Tomáš Dořičák J. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 31/03/08 Věra Šindelářová ICD 4562 6090780002 J.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. Tomáš Dořičák Art.r.o.o. Art.

Art.A. 25(1) (b) Invalidity application rejected 31/03/08 ICD 4349 6494470011 Link Treasure Limited ABC Design GmbH Art.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1) (b) Invalidity application rejected 31/03/08 ICD 4331 6494470010 Link Treasure Limited ABC Design GmbH Art. RCD No. Applicant Result 31/03/08 ICD 4323 6494470009 Link Treasure Limited ABC Design GmbH Art. 25(1) (b) Invalidity application rejected 31/03/08 ICD 3796 3259490001 Punch Sphere Time International S. 25(1) (b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 .

A.A. Art. RCD No. 25(1) (b) (g) Invalidity application rejected 31/03/08 ICD 3986 5867480002 Francisco Delgado Ortiz Camm-Way Accessories S.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1) (b) Invalidity application rejected 31/03/08 ICD 3978 5867480001 Francisco Delgado Ortiz Camm-Way Accessories S. Art. Art.A.A. 25(1) (b) (g) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 . Art. Applicant Result 31/03/08 ICD 3804 3259490001 Punch Sphere Time International S. 25(1) (b) (g) Invalidity application rejected 31/03/08 ICD 3994 5867480003 Francisco Delgado Ortiz Camm-Way Accessories S.

25(1) (b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . 25(1) (b) (g) Invalidity application rejected 31/03/08 HARRON S. DIVISA SISTEMAS GLOBALES S.A Art. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 31/03/08 ICD 4166 5744620001 CROCS Inc. Applicant Result 31/03/08 ICD 4000 5867480004 Francisco Delgado Ortiz Camm-Way Accessories S. DIVISA SISTEMAS GLOBALES S.A Art.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No.A. Art. RCD No.A ICD 3200 2826600001 THD Acoustics Limited Art. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 31/03/08 ICD 4174 7156440002 CROCS Inc.

25(1) (b) RCD invalid 10/03/08 ICD 4414 7169070001 Presenta Nova d.o. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . Concept-s Ladenbau & Objektdesign GmbH Art. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 11/03/08 ICD 4364 2466810001 Elasto Form KG T-Mobile Deutschland GmbH Art. Applicant Result 31/03/08 ICD 4315 6494470008 Link Treasure Limited ABC Design GmbH Art. RCD No. 25(1) (b) Invalidity application rejected 10/03/08 ICD 4380 4251780001 DeBe Pumpar AB MUOVITECH AB Art.o.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No.

25(1) (b) Invalidity application rejected 28/02/08 Ming-Kun Tsai ICD 4455 7268310001 Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo Art. 25(1) (b) Invalidity application rejected 28/02/08 ICD 0834 1809970002 Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo DB Design GmbH Art. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . RCD No. Applicant Result 28/02/08 ICD 0826 1809970001 Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo DB Design GmbH Art.L Art.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1) (b) Invalidity application rejected 26/02/08 ICD 3911 6466900002 Aroco – Commercio E Distribucao Detumando S.

Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo Art. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 20/02/08 ICD 4513 3213020003 Stak Plast Ltd. 25(1) (b) Invalidity application rejected 20/02/08 ICD 4521 3213020004 Stak Plast Ltd. Applicant Result 20/02/08 ICD 4505 3213020002 Stak Plast Ltd. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 20/02/08 ICD 4539 3213020006 Stak Plast Ltd. Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo Art. Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo Art. RCD No.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo Art.

L Art.L Art.L Plantillas Rosmar S.L Plantillas Rosmar S.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 15/02/08 ICD 3879 6669380006 D’Calderoni S. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 15/02/08 ICD 3887 6669380007 D’Calderoni S. RCD No. 25(1) (b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 . 25(1) (b) Invalidity application rejected 15/02/08 ICD 3895 6669380008 Plantillas Rosmar S.L D’Calderoni S. Applicant Result 20/02/08 Muovitech AB ICD 4026 4251780002 DeBe Pumpar AB Art.L Art.

25(1) (b) RCD invalid 21/12/07 NO IMAGE ICD 3812 2054550001 Coop Danmark A/S Ilse Jacobsen Art. RCD No. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 21/01/08 ICD 3929 3342970002 Tzu Hsien Yu RaidSonic Technology GmbH Art. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 31/01/08 ICD 3853 1196230001 RH ALURAD Höffken GmbH Sport-ServiceLorinser Sportliche Autoausrüstung GmbH Art. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 .Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. Applicant Result 12/02/08 ICD 4034 5283770001 Hong Zhang Stokke AS Art.

INC Art. Applicant Result 20/12/07 NO IMAGE ICD 4133 6879000003 HENKEL KGAA Jees Polska Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnośc ią Art. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 .Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1) (e) Invalidity application rejected 18/12/07 ICD 4042 3540060001 Kittrich Corporation Rogier Pieter van Kleef and Mouhssine Otmani Art. CROCS. RCD No. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 12/12/07 ICD 3010 2570010001 Holey Soles Holdings Ltd. 25(1) (e) Invalidity application rejected 20/12/07 ICD 4141 6879000004 HENKEL KGAA Jees Polska Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnośc ią Art.

25(1) (b) RCD invalid 05/12/07 ICD 3689 789100002 VALOIS SAS ars Parfum Creation and Consulting GmbH Art. Applicant Result 11/12/07 ICD 3184 4347820001 Euro Fire AB TARNAVVA Sp.o. z o. INC.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. Art. 25(1) (b) Invalidity application rejected 05/12/07 Casper V Sport ICD 4182 6944920001 CROCS. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 05/12/07 ICD 3671 789100001 VALOIS SAS ars Parfum Creation and Consulting GmbH Art. RCD No. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . Art.

25(1) (b) RCD invalid 05/12/07 ICD 3713 789100005 VALOIS SAS ars Parfum Creation and Consulting GmbH Art. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 05/12/07 ICD 3705 789100004 VALOIS SAS ars Parfum Creation and Consulting GmbH Art.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. Applicant Result 05/12/07 ICD 3697 789100003 VALOIS SAS ars Parfum Creation and Consulting GmbH Art. RCD No. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 05/12/07 ICD 3721 789100006 VALOIS SAS ars Parfum Creation and Consulting GmbH Art.

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

05/12/07

ICD 3737

789100007

VALOIS SAS

ars Parfum Creation and Consulting GmbH

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

05/12/07

ICD 3742

789100008

VALOIS SAS

ars Parfum Creation and Consulting GmbH

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

05/12/07

ICD 3754

789100009

VALOIS SAS

ars Parfum Creation and Consulting GmbH

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

30/11/07

ICD 4190

6161070012

Prodir S.A.

DARIUSZ LIBERA ALSO TRADING AS DREAMPEN

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

30/11/07

ICD 4208

6161070013

Prodir S.A.

DARIUSZ LIBERA ALSO TRADING AS DREAMPEN

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

30/11/07

ICD 4216

6161070014

Prodir S.A

DARIUSZ LIBERA ALSO TRADING AS DREAMPEN

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

30/11/07

ICD 4224

6161070015

Prodir S.A.

DARIUSZ LIBERA ALSO TRADING AS DREAMPEN

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

28/11/07

ICD 3424

2376560006

Conrad Electronic SE

Lena Lighting Sp. z o.o.

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

26/11/07

ICD 4240

6466900001

ArocoComercio E Distribucao DETUMANDO, S.L.

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

26/11/07

ICD 4059

5563780001 YOUSSEF EL JIRARI ZIANI

Calvin Klein Trademark Trust

Art. 25(1)( e )

RCD invalid

20/11/07 NO IMAGE

ICD 2970

2329960001 Nordson Corporation

UES AG

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

20/11/07 NO IMAGE

ICD 2988

2329960008

UES AG

Nordson Corporation

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

DM_EU:8746013_2

A. Art.A.A. Applicant Result 20/11/07 NO IMAGE ICD 2996 2329960015 Nordson Corporation UES AG Art. S. Art. RCD No.A.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No.T.A. OCIDENTAL ARTE EM TAPETES. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 19/11/07 ICD 3366 4029200003 Carving O.T. S. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 19/11/07 ICD 2988 4029200001 Carving O. OCIDENTAL ARTE EM TAPETES. Art. S.A. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 19/11/07 ICD 3358 4029200002 Carving O. OCIDENTAL ARTE EM TAPETES.T.

25(1) (b) RCD invalid 24/10/07 ICD 3325 5194910001 YOUSSEF EL JIRARI ZIANI Calvin Klein Trademark Trust Art. Applicant Result 19/11/07 ICD 3374 4029200004 Carving O. 25(1) (e) RCD invalid 24/10/07 ICD 3333 5194910002 Calvin Klein Trademark Trust YOUSSEF EL JIRARI ZIANI Art. Art.A. 25(1) (e) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . RCD No.R.A.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No.T.O. S. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 07/11/07 ICD 3630 4136610001 JEES S. Julius Samann Ltd Art. OCIDENTAL ARTE EM TAPETES.

A. Consulting and Trading Alicante Art. 25(1) (b) Invalidity application rejected 10/10/07 ICD 3408 5839190005 Antecuir. S.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1) (b) RCD invalid 11/10/07 ICD 3259 60510002 Sun Garden GmbH TaiZhou YongJiang Arts & Crafts Co. 25(1) (b) Invalidity application rejected 11/10/07 ICD 3903 5268010011 Merlin Handelsgesells chaft mbH DUSYMA Kindergartenbed arf GmbH Art. RCD No. Applicant Result 19/10/07 ICD 3663 4737720001 PARLUX S. Ltd Art.p.L MICROFIBRES INC Art. 25(1) (b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 .

Zoo Zakład Produkcji Opakowań Rosiński i Art. RCD No.V Art. Applicant Result 10/10/07 ICD 3416 6035430002 MICROFIBRES INC Antecuir. 25(1) (b) Invalidity application rejected 10/10/07 NO IMAGE ICD 3648 6082370001 Forte Sweden Sp. S. S.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No.L. 25(1) (b) Invalidity application rejected 10/10/07 ICD 3655 6082370002 NO IMAGE Forte Sweden Sp. Zoo Zakład Produkcji Opakowań Rosiński i Art. 25(1) (b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 .L. 25(1) (b) Invalidity application rejected 04/09/07 ICD 3820 2166920002 Personal Print. Hidalgo International B. Art.

25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 . 25(1) (b) RCD Invalid 27/08/07 NO IMAGE ICD 3382 3707050001 Flemming Korshøj Gioros srl Art.L.V Art. Applicant Result 31/08/07 ICD 3838 2166920001 Personal Print.V Art.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. S. 25(1) (b) RCD Invalid 31/08/07 ICD 3846 2166920003 Personal Print. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 02/08/07 ICD 3002 4561400001 Top-Line Moebelprodukti on Møldrup A/S Thane Direct Company Art. S. RCD No.L. Hidalgo International B. Hidalgo International B.

25(1)(e) Invalidity application rejected 26/07/07 ICD 2764 4732510004 Flex Equipos de Descanso. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 24/07/07 ICD 3622 6383090001 SIACO. 25(1)(e) Invalidity application rejected 25/07/07 ICD 3176 3607480001 Castrol Limited NORMANPLAST (Société en nom collectif) Art.L.L. The Procter & Gamble Company Art. SA VAPESOL – Fábrica de Componentes Art. S. S.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. RCD No. The Procter & Gamble Company Art. 25 (1)(b)(d) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 . Applicant Result 26/07/07 ICD 2756 4732510001 Flex Equipos de Descanso.

Art.A. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 24/07/07 ICD 3291 ZILCO Srl 2021550006 Fredericia Furniture Art.L INTERMAS NETS. S. Art.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1)(b)(f) RCD invalid 24/07/07 ICD 3309 2021550007 Fredericia Furniture ZILCO Srl Art. S.L INTERMAS NETS. 25(1)(b)(f) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . Applicant Result 24/07/07 ICD 3580 3893330001 CATRAL Export S. RCD No. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 24/07/07 ICD 3580 3893330003 CATRAL Export S.A.

Presenta Nova d. Art. Applicant Result 10/07/07 ICD 2632 4633440003 MAFIN S.o.o. Optotim d.o. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 27/06/07 ICD 3275 1708730002 Presenta Nova d. Art.o. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 .p.o. RCD No. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 04/07/07 Coverpla S. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 27/06/07 ICD 3267 1708730003 Optotim d.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No.o.o.A.A Freiberger Lebensmittel GmbH & Co Art. ICD 2670 0291780002 Heinz-Glas GmbH Art.o.

Presenta Nova d. Wen-Sung Lee Art. 25(1) (b) CDR RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 .o. Applicant Result 21/06/07 ICD 3283 1708730001 Optotim d. RCD No.P. 25(1) (b) CDR RCD Invalid 23/05/07 ICD 2731 4606960001 ID-Präsente GmbH Arto Schäfer GmbH Art.A. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 15/05/07 ICD 3168 4103110001 J.o. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 21/06/07 ICD 2848 3163100001 TECNID S.o. Wagner GmbH Hughes Marie Sanoner Art. Art.o.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No.

25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 23/04/07 ICD 2681 4256080001 Andrzey Madrzyk Władysław Binda Art. Applicant Result 15/05/07 ICD 2749 3825280008 Arto Schäfer GmbH ID-Präsente GmbH Art. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 27/04/07 ICD 2715 4564210001 Colin Campbell Pavel Blata Art. Oether Polska Sp z. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 15/05/07 ICD 2723 2736440001 Dr.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No.o. Zakład Produkcyjno Handlowy "TROPIC" Art. RCD No.o. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 .

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 05/04/07 ICD 2533 3417480006 Santiago Pons Quintana. ALFIERE S. Art.FIN S. S.R.GE. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 .p.A. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 23/04/07 ICD 2707 4256080015 Andrzey Madrzyk Władysław Binda Art. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 12/04/07 ICD 2921 3077230005 The Heating Company BVBA CO. Art.A. RCD No.L. Applicant Result 23/04/07 ICD 2699 4256080008 Władysław Binda Andrzey Madrzyk Art.

Art. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 04/04/07 ICD 2541 3417480007 ALFIERE S.p.p. Santiago Pons Quintana.A. RCD No. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 04/04/07 ICD 2178 3417480004 ALFIERE S. Applicant Result 05/04/07 ALFIERE S. S.A. S.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. Ltd. Art. Wuxi Kipor Power Co. S. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . ICD 2566 3417480009 Santiago Pons Quintana.. Ltd. Art.p.A. 25(1) (b) Invalidity application rejected 03/04/07 ICD 2178 1711780004 Honda Motor Co. Santiago Pons Quintana.A.A. Art.A.

RCD No.p. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 03/04/07 ICD 2772 IPS s.A.A. Applicant Result 03/04/07 ALFIERE S. S. 2120970006 Bellamy Sas Art. Art. S. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 03/04/07 ICD 2558 3417480008 ALFIERE S.A.r.p. ICD 2509 3417480003 Santiago Pons Quintana. Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 .l. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 03/04/07 ICD 2905 2656160001 Shiu Lin Yu Lin Chun-Ju Art. Santiago Pons Quintana.A.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No.

Art.p. S.A.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. Applicant Result 03/04/07 ICD 3150 2537780001 Lars Fransson Lindner Recyclingtech GmbH.A. RCD No. Art. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 29/03/07 ICD 3317 4282550001 Calvin Klein Trademark Trust YOUSSEF EL JIRARI ZIANI Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 29/03/07 ICD 2525 3417480005 ALFIERE S.p. 25(1)(e) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . S.A.A. Art. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 2/04/07 ICD 2491 3417480002 ALFIERE S. Santiago Pons Quintana. Santiago Pons Quintana.

& Co. spol s. 25(1)(b) RCD Invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 .Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. Applicant Result 23/03/07 ICD 3572 6199860001 Marc Peris Ribera CASA TARRADELLAS.H. KG Art. S.A.V.r. S. RCD No. Art. Art. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 14/03/07 ICD 2210 4131250001 Beata Holdrowicz Bożena Lewicka SZI-BO ExportImport Art. ColopStempelerzeugun g Skopek Gesellschaft m.o. A. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 14/03/07 ICD 2590 1535560001 Megaflex. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 07/03/07 ICD 2434 1748340001 Unilever N. ICE CREAM FACTORY COMAKER.b.

R. Art. RCD No. S. Art. Applicant Result 07/03/07 ICD 2442 1748340002 Unilever N. ICE CREAM FACTORY COMAKER.A.V.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No.A. 25(1)(b) RCD Invalid 20/02/07 ICD 2160 366450001 Russell Gee Cinders Barbecues Art. S. 25(1)(b) RCD Invalid 07/03/07 ICD 2459 1748340003 Unilever N. 25(1)(a) RCD Invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . Art. ICE CREAM FACTORY COMAKER.V.L. 25(1)(b) RCD Invalid 16/02/07 ICD 2913 1693700002 The Heating Company BVBA TUBES RADIATORI S.

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

16/02/07

ICD 2962

3808110001

Flir Systems AB

Guangzhou Sat Infrared Technology Co. Ldt.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

16/02/07

ICD 3242

502160001

Drahtwerke Plochinger GmbH

AVI Alpenländische VeredelungsIndustrie Gesellschaft m.b.H.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

16/02/07

ICD 3234

502160002

Drahtwerke Plochinger GmbH

AVI Alpenländische VeredelungsIndustrie Gesellschaft m.b.H.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

16/02/07

ICD 3226

502160003

Drahtwerke Plochinger GmbH

AVI Alpenländische VeredelungsIndustrie Gesellschaft m.b.H.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

16/02/07

ICD 3218

502160004

Drahtwerke Plochinger GmbH

AVI Alpenländische VeredelungsIndustrie Gesellschaft m.b.H.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

30/01/07

ICD 3069

3778250001

Calvin Klein Trademark Trust

MUSTAPHÁ EL JIRARI BOUZEKRI

Art. 25(1)(e)

RCD invalid

30/01/07

ICD 3051

3621570001

Calvin Klein Trademark Trust

MUSTAPHÁ EL JIRARI BOUZEKRI

Art. 25(1)(e)

RCD invalid

30/01/07

ICD 3044

4262180003

LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER / Calvin Klein Trademark Trust

MUSTAPHÁ EL JIRARI BOUZEKRI

Art. 25(1)(e)

RCD invalid

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

30/01/07

ICD 3036

4262180002

Calvin Klein Trademark Trust

MUSTAPHÁ EL JIRARI BOUZEKRI

Art. 25(1)(e)

RCD invalid

26/01/07

ICD 3135

1488870004

LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER / Calvin Klein Trademark Trust MUSTAPHÁ EL JIRARI BOUZEKRI

Art. 25(1)(e)

RCD invalid

26/01/07

ICD 3127

1488870003

LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER / Calvin Klein Trademark Trust MUSTAPHÁ EL JIRARI BOUZEKRI

Art. 25(1)(e)

RCD invalid

26/01/07

ICD 3119

1488870002

LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER / Calvin Klein Trademark Trust

MUSTAPHÁ EL JIRARI BOUZEKRI

Art. 25(1)(e)

RCD invalid

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. Applicant Result 26/01/07 ICD 3101 1488870001 LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER / Calvin Klein Trademark Trust MUSTAPHÁ EL JIRARI BOUZEKRI Art. 25(1)(e) RCD invalid 26/01/07 ICD 3085 3597240002 LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER / Calvin Klein Trademark Trust MUSTAPHÁ EL JIRARI BOUZEKRI Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 26/01/07 ICD 3077 3597240001 LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER / Calvin Klein Trademark Trust MUSTAPHÁ EL JIRARI BOUZEKRI Art. 25(1)(e) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . 25(1)(e) RCD invalid 26/01/07 ICD 3093 3597240003 LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER / Calvin Klein Trademark Trust MUSTAPHÁ EL JIRARI BOUZEKRI Art. RCD No.

Art. Art.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . S.A. 25(1)(e) Invalidity application rejected 18/01/07 ICD 1451 1321390017 5th Avenue Designs Division of Covington ALHAMBRA INTERNACIONA L. RCD No. Applicant Result 24/01/07 ICD 3028 4262180001 Calvin Klein Trademark Trust. S. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 18/01/07 ICD 1436 1321390014 5th Avenue Designs Division of Covington ALHAMBRA INTERNACIONA L. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 18/01/07 ICD 1444 1321390016 5th Avenue Designs Division of Covington ALHAMBRA INTERNACIONA L. Art.A.A. MUSTAPHÁ EL JIRARI BOUZEKRI Art. S.

25(1)(b) RCD invalid 20/12/06 ICD 2954 3393120003 Companie Gervais Danone Zygmunt Piotrowski Art.A. S. Art. RCD No. 25(1)(e) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 .Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1)(e) RCD invalid 20/12/06 ICD 2947 3393120002 Companie Gervais Danone Zygmunt Piotrowski Art. Applicant Result 18/01/07 ICD 1428 1321390012 5th Avenue Designs Division of Covington ALHAMBRA INTERNACIONA L. 25(1)(e) RCD invalid 20/12/06 ICD 2939 3393120001 Companie Gervais Danone Zygmunt Piotrowski Art.

RCD No. A. 25(1)(e) RCD invalid 12/12/06 ICD 2863 2548750001 Tadeusz Kropielnicki Andrzej Zaleszczuk Art. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 01/12/06 ICD 1766 3261110001 Giuliana Savoldi Casellato Luciano Art. FIAM ITALIA S. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 12/12/06 ICD 2475 3230840013 Reflex S.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. Applicant Result 20/12/06 Matthias Müller ICD 2244 1898570002 Investment Consulting Service Co Ltd Art.p. Art.A. p.

RCD No. Applicant Result 01/12/06 ICD 1774 3261110002 Giuliana Savoldi Casellato Luciano Art. Jimmy Meykranz Art. NV Inadmissible Invalidity application rejected 01/12/06 NO IMAGE ICD 2616 3000170038 TEVEA B.V MASSIVE. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 01/12/06 ICD 2467 2532730001 Burberry Ltd.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No.V MASSIVE. NV Inadmissible Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 . 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 01/12/06 NO IMAGE ICD 2608 3000170037 TEVEA B.

Magic Dreams S.V Inadmissible Invalidity application rejected 30/11/06 ICD 1212 2993180001 Mladen Pintur Concept-s Ladenbau & Objectdesign Art. Art.R. RCD No. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 24/11/06 ICD 2780 644070001 SIPEM S. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 30/11/06 ICD 1220 2993180002 Mladen Pintur Concept-s Ladenbau & Objectdesign Art. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 .l.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. Applicant Result 01/12/06 NO IMAGE MASSIVE. NV ICD 2624 3000170053 TEVEA B.r.L.

Magic Dreams S.R.L.R. Art.l.l.r. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 24/11/06 ICD 2822 644070005 SIPEM S.L. RCD No.L Magic Dreams S.l. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 24/11/06 ICD 2806 644070003 SIPEM S.R. Magic Dreams S. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 24/11/06 ICD 2814 644070004 SIPEM S. Art. Art.L.l. Applicant Result 24/11/06 ICD 2798 644070002 SIPEM S. Art.R.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No.r.r.r. Magic Dreams S. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 .

L.L. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 24/11/06 ICD 1089 2188470001 Michael Sandkötter Christoph Sandkötter Art. Magic Dreams S. S.r. Art.l. S.R. PLASTIMODUL. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 24/11/06 ICD 1154 2158760001 Michael Sandkötter Christoph Sandkötter Art.A. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . RCD No. Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 23/11/06 ICD 2418 4288420010 Mecalde 2.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. Applicant Result 24/11/06 ICD 2830 644070006 SIPEM S.

PLASTIMODUL. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 21/11/06 ICD 2392 4288420008 Mecalde 2. S. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 21/11/06 ICD 1113 2188470004 Michael Sandkötter Christoph Sandkötter Art. Applicant Result 22/11/06 ICD 1097 2188470002 Michael Sandkötter Christoph Sandkötter Art. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 22/11/06 ICD 1105 2188470003 Michael Sandkötter Christoph Sandkötter Art.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No.L.A. S. Art. RCD No. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 .

Art.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. PLASTIMODUL S.P. 25(1)(d) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 14/11/06 ICD 2061 1698180001 DB Design GmbH ANICETO CANAMASAS PUIGBO Art. 25(1)(d) RCD invalid 13/11/06 ICD 0842 375930001 Dansk Supermarked A/S Ferrari S. RCD No. Art.A. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 15/11/06 ICD 2400 4288420009 Mecalde 2. Applicant Result 21/11/06 ICD 1139 2188470006 Michael Sandkötter Christoph Sandkötter Art. S.A.L.

S.A.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. PLASTIMODUL. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 10/11/06 ICD 1121 2188470005 Michael Sandkötter Christoph Sandkötter Art. S.L. S. PLASTIMODUL. S. PLASTIMODUL. S. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 13/11/06 ICD 2384 4288420007 Mecalde 2. RCD No.A. S.L. Art.L. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 13/11/06 ICD 2376 4288420006 Mecalde 2. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 . Art. Art.A. Applicant Result 13/11/06 ICD 2368 4288420005 Mecalde 2.

25(1)(b) RCD invalid 10/11/06 ICD 2335 4288420002 Mecalde 2. PLASTIMODUL. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 10/11/06 ICD 2327 4288420001 Mecalde 2. Art. Applicant Result 10/11/06 ICD 2310 3212940001 Myrurgia S.A. S.A.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No.L Art. S. RCD No. S. Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 .A PLASTIMODUL. S.L. S. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 10/11/06 ICD 2343 4288420003 Mecalde 2.A. MIGUEL ANGEL MIRA NAVARRO Art. PLASTIMODUL. S.L.

S.A PLASTIMODUL.A.A.A.p. Andersen ISS Manufacturing Limited Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 10/11/06 ICD 1386 2896320002 Leng-D'or. MAFIN S. Art. Art.A. Art. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 .p. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 23/10/06 ICD 1394 2896320003 Leng-D'or. Applicant Result 10/11/06 ICD 2350 4288420004 Mecalde 2.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 06/11/06 No image ICD 2855 5186260001 Christian M. S. MAFIN S. S. RCD No. S.L.

25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 10/10/06 No image Built NY.p. 25(1)(f) Invalidity application rejected 29/09/06 ICD 2871 4336440001 HANSA Metallwerke AG Carlo Klinger Art. RCD No. Inc. ICD 2483 2106790002 I-Feng Kao Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . Applicant Result 23/10/06 No image ICD 1402 2896320004 Leng-D'or.A.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds MAFIN S.A. Art. S. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 04/10/06 ICD 2228 3208090001 Arbonia AG Atlantic Société Française de Developpment Thermique Art. Decision No.

25(1)(b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . RCD No. S.L. RCD invalid 22/09/06 Calmoda.L. Art. S. S. Calmoda.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No.L. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 29/09/06 ICD 2897 4336440003 Carlo Klinger HANSA Metallwerke AG Art. Art. ICD 2574 3468610003 Camper. Applicant Result 29/09/06 Carlo Klinger ICD 2889 4336440002 HANSA Metallwerke AG Art. S.L. 25(1)(b). 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 22/09/06 ICD 2665 3468610015 Camper.

RCD No. Linea Hogar Deco.L.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. S. Art.L. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 19/09/06 ICD 1980 3787570010 Venilia. S. Applicant Result 20/09/06 Calmoda. Linea Hogar Deco. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 19/09/06 ICD 2087 4047280001 Equipamientos Y Materiales Deportivos SL Benito Julian Jerez Melendez Miguel Angel Gutiez Aguerri Art.L.L. S.A. 25(1)(b)(d) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 . Art. S. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 19/09/06 ICD 1972 3787570008 Venilia. Art. S. S. ICD 2657 3468610013 Camper.A.

Venilia. Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 13/09/06 ICD 1642 3787570001 Linea Hogar Deco. S.. Ltd. Art.L. S. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 .A. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 14/09/06 ICD 1931 3136550003 Mecalde 2. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 15/09/06 ICD 1469 2149030001 Bosch Security Systems B.L.L.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No.V.A. Art. RCD No. Art. S. S. Taiden Industrial (Sehnzen) Co. Herrajes y Sistemas Belkriss. S. Applicant Result 18/09/06 ICD 2194 3446010001 Zhenguang Yan Europea De Ceramicas.

25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 . Art. S.A. Art. S.L. S. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 13/09/06 ICD 1667 3787570003 Venilia. Art. Applicant Result 13/09/06 Venilia.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 13/09/06 ICD 1675 3787570004 Venilia. S. S.L. S. RCD No. Linea Hogar Deco. Venilia.L.L.A. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 13/09/06 ICD 1683 37570005 Linea Hogar Deco.A. S. S. Art. ICD 1659 3787570002 Linea Hogar Deco. Linea Hogar Deco.A.

25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 .L. ICD 1691 3787570006 Linea Hogar Deco. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 13/09/06 Venilia. Art. Art. S. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 13/09/06 ICD 1709 3787570007 Venilia.L. RCD No.L. Applicant Result 13/09/06 Venilia. S. S. S. Venilia. S.A.A. Art. Linea Hogar Deco.L.A. S. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 13/09/06 ICD 1725 3787570011 Linea Hogar Deco.A.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. S. ICD 1717 3787570009 Linea Hogar Deco. Art. S.

A.L. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 12/09/06 ICD 1956 3307820001 HK Ruokatalo Group Oyi Atria Yhtyma Oyj Art. Applicant Result 13/09/06 Venilia. Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . RCD No. Art. S. S. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 13/09/06 ICD 1816 3787570013 Venilia.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. Linea Hogar Deco. ICD 1733 3787570012 Linea Hogar Deco. S. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 13/09/06 ICD 2202 1230130001 Handl Cookware Limited Imperial International Limited Art.A. S.L.

25(1)(b) RCD invalid 08/09/06 ICD 2285 3870890002 Ancieto Canamasas Puigbo HENKEL KOMMANDITGE SELLSCHAFT AUF AKTIEN C/O HENKEL KGaA Art.. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 31/08/06 ICD 2186 1711780005 Honda Motor Co. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 31/08/06 ICD 2640 2736930001 Societe BIC Baide International Europe s. Wuxi Kipor Power Co.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. Ltd. Art.o. Applicant Result 12/09/06 ICD 1964 3307820002 Atria Yhtyma Oyj HK Ruokatalo Group Oyi Art. Ltd Art. RCD No.r.

. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 24/08/06 ICD 2426 3523150007 Ningbo Beifa Group Co. 25(1)(e) RCD invalid 23/08/06 ICD 1329 2882200001 Martin Saulespurens SIA Scruples Art. Art. Applicant Result 30/08/06 ICD 1006 1632900002 Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha Kwang Yang Motor Co. Ltd.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No.. RCD No. Ltd SchwanSTABILO Schwanhäußer GmbH Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 29/08/06 ICD 1410 1961670003 Mars UK Limited Paragon Products BV Art.

Applicant Result 23/08/06 ICD 1337 2882200002 SIA Scruples Martin Saulespurens Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 23/08/06 ICD 1345 2882200003 SIA Scruples Martin Saulespurens Art.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 23/08/06 ICD 1360 2882200005 Martin Saulespurens SIA Scruples Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 23/08/06 SIA Scruples ICD 1352 2882200004 Martin Saulespurens Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . RCD No.

RCD No.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. Ltd. Art. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 . Applicant Result 23/08/06 SIA Scruples ICD 1378 2882200006 Martin Saulespurens Art. Kwang Yang Motor Co. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 17/08/06 ICD 0990 1632900001 Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha.. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 17/08/06 ICD 2301 3870890004 Ancieto Canamasas Puigbo HENKEL KOMMANDITGE SELLSCHAFT AUF AKTIEN C/O HENKEL KGaA Art. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 01/08/06 ICD 2293 3870890003 Ancieto Canamasas Puigbo HENKEL KOMMANDITGE SELLSCHAFT AUF AKTIEN C/O HENKEL KGaA Art.

25(1)(b) RCD invalid 08/05/06 I-Feng Kao ICD 2038 2641300001 Built NY Inc Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . Applicant Result 15/05/06 ICD 1741 2887330001 Bümag EG The Procter & Gamble Company Art. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 15/05/06 ICD 1758 2887330002 Bümag EG The Procter & Gamble Company Art.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 08/05/06 ICD 2046 2641300002 Built NY Inc I-Feng Kao Art. RCD No.

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. RCD No. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 26/04/06 ICD 1824 3304020001 Pitacs Limited Kamil Korhan Karagülle Art. 25(1)(d) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . 25(1)(d) Invalidity application rejected 03/05/06 ICD 2095 3875840001 I-Feng Kao Built NY Inc Art. Applicant Result 08/05/06 I-Feng Kao ICD 2053 3875840003 Built NY Inc Art. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 03/05/06 I-Feng Kao ICD 2103 3875840002 Built NY Inc Art.

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. Applicant Result 26/04/06 ICD 1832 3304020002 Pitacs Limited Kamil Korhan Karagülle Art. 25(1)(d) RCD invalid 26/04/06 ICD 1840 3304020003 Kamil Korhan Karagülle Pitacs Limited Art. 25(1)(d) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . 25(1)(d) RCD invalid 26/04/06 ICD 1857 3304020008 Pitacs Limited Kamil Korhan Karagülle Art. 25(1)(d) RCD invalid 26/04/06 ICD 1865 3304020009 Pitacs Limited Kamil Korhan Karagülle Art. RCD No.

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1)(d) RCD invalid 26/04/06 ICD 1881 3304020013 Pitacs Limited Kamil Korhan Karagülle Art. Applicant Result 26/04/06 ICD 1873 3304020012 Pitacs Limited Kamil Korhan Karagülle Art. 25(1)(d) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . 25(1)(d) RCD invalid 26/04/06 ICD 1899 3304020014 Kamil Korhan Karagülle Pitacs Limited Art. 25(1)(d) RCD invalid 26/04/06 ICD 1824 3304020015 Pitacs Limited Kamil Korhan Karagülle Art. RCD No.

25(1)(b) RCD invalid 23/03/06 No Image ICD 1303 3122020001 ABHolding C. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 . 25(1)(d) RCD invalid 26/04/06 ICD 1923 3304020017 Pitacs Limited Kamil Korhan Karagülle Art.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. Art. Applicant Result 26/04/06 ICD 1832 3304020002 Pitacs Limited Kamil Korhan Karagülle Art. RCD No. van Hellenburg Hubar Art.V. E. Vlemmix B.o. 25(1)(d) RCD invalid 29/03/06 ICD 1782 3702000001 Monika Barber J&J Decor Spolka z o.

25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 17/03/06 Birger Olsson ICD 0958 1998720002 Dryson AB Art. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 17/03/06 ICD 0974 1998720004 Dryson AB Birger Olsson Art.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. RCD No. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 . 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 17/03/06 Birger Olsson ICD 0966 1998720003 Dryson AB Art. Applicant Result 17/03/06 Birger Olsson ICD 0941 0001998 72-0001 Dryson AB Art.

Gera 259 Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 01/03/06 ICD 1477 1624250001 Zellweger Analytics Limited Hee Jung Kim Art. RCD No. Applicant Result 17/03/06 Birger Olsson ICD 0982 1998720005 Dryson AB Art. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 02/03/06 ICD 1576 174470001 MAXIM Markenprodukt e GmbH & Co KG Bharat B.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1)(e) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . 25(1)(e) RCD invalid 01/03/06 ICD 1485 1624250002 Hee Jung Kim Zellweger Analytics Limited Art.

Art. 25(1)(e) RCD invalid 20/02/06 ICD 1535 2129070005 Retch Porzellan Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 20/02/06 ICD 1543 2129070007 Retch Porzellan Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1)(e) RCD invalid 01/03/06 ICD 1501 1624250004 Zellweger Analytics Limited Hee Jung Kim Art. RCD No. Applicant Result 01/03/06 ICD 1493 1624250003 Zellweger Analytics Limited Hee Jung Kim Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . Art.

Retch Porzellan Art.L Art. S. Art. Vuelta International S. Applicant Result 20/02/06 ICD 1550 2129070008 Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd.A.P. Art. 25(1)(b) (e) RCD invalid 07/02/06 ICD 1519 2129070002 Retch Porzellan Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd. RCD No. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 10/02/06 ICD 0602 1071150003 Rodi Comercial S.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 . 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 08/02/06 ICD 1568 2864300001 Burberry Ltd Creaciones Camal.A.

25(1)(b) RCD invalid 06/02/06 ICD 0768 1199610003 Heidelberger Druckmaschine n AG Microsoft Corporation Art. RCD No. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . Art. Applicant Result 07/02/06 ICD 1527 2129070004 Retch Porzellan Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 06/02/06 ICD 0750 1199610002 Microsoft Corporation Heidelberger Druckmaschine n AG Art. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 06/02/06 ICD 0743 1199610001 Heidelberger Druckmaschine n AG Microsoft Corporation Art.

25(1)(b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . RCD No.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 06/02/06 ICD 0800 1199610007 Heidelberger Druckmaschine n AG Microsoft Corporation Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 06/02/06 ICD 0792 1199610006 Heidelberger Druckmaschine n AG Microsoft Corporation Art. Applicant Result 06/02/06 ICD 0776 1199610004 Heidelberger Druckmaschine n AG Microsoft Corporation Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 06/02/06 ICD 0784 1199610005 Heidelberger Druckmaschine n AG Microsoft Corporation Art.

Art.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. Art. RCD No. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 26/01/06 ICD 1600 2283330011 Narumi China Corporation Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd. Applicant Result 06/02/06 ICD 0818 1199610008 Heidelberger Druckmaschine n AG Microsoft Corporation Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 26/01/06 ICD 01592 2283330010 Narumi China Corporation Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd. Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 26/01/06 ICD 1618 2283330012 Narumi China Corporation Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd.

RCD No.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No.b. Applicant Result 20/01/06 ICD 1014 278260001 Audi AG Roder Zelt.H. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 .und Veranstaltungsse rvice GmbH Art. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 16/01/06 ICD 0891 2534970004 Kennex (Hong Kong) LTD Retsch Porzellan GmbH Art. WS Teleshop International Handels-GmbH Art. 25(1)(b)(f) Invalidity application rejected 19/01/06 NO IMAGE ICD 0560 494240001 Kirschenhofer Gesellschaft m. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 16/01/06 ICD 0909 2534970005 Kennex (Hong Kong) LTD Retsch Porzellan GmbH Art.

l. RCD No. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 16/01/06 ICD 0925 2534970007 Kennex (Hong Kong) LTD Retsch Porzellan GmbH Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 16/01/06 ICD 0933 2534970008 Kennex (Hong Kong) LTD Retsch Porzellan GmbH Art.L. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 . 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 13/01/06 ICD 0875 2083350001 Iberlamp Light S.u. s. Lorefar .Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. Art. Applicant Result 16/01/06 ICD 0917 2534970006 Kennex (Hong Kong) LTD Retsch Porzellan GmbH Art.

25(1)(b) RCD invalid 20/12/05 ICD 0487 933560003 Aktiebolaget Design Rubens Sweden Marie Ekman Backlund. Applicant Result 20/12/05 ICD 0461 933560001 Aktiebolaget Design Rubens Sweden Marie Ekman Backlund. BrittMarie Jakobsson Art. BrittMarie Jakobsson Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 20/12/05 ICD 0479 933560002 Aktiebolaget Design Rubens Sweden Marie Ekman Backlund. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 20/12/05 ICD 0495 933560004 Aktiebolaget Design Rubens Sweden Marie Ekman Backlund. BrittMarie Jakobsson Art. RCD No. BrittMarie Jakobsson Art.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No.

BrittMarie Jakobsson Art. Applicant Result 20/12/05 ICD 0503 933560007 Aktiebolaget Design Rubens Sweden Marie Ekman Backlund. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 20/12/05 ICD 0594 1071150002 Rodi Comercial S. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 . RCD No. Vuelta International S. Art.A.A.P. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 20/12/05 ICD 1063 2941520002 Indecasa. BrittMarie Jakobsson Art. Juan Antonio Ramirez Franco Art. S.A. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 20/12/05 ICD 0511 933560010 Aktiebolaget Design Rubens Sweden Marie Ekman Backlund.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No.

25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 01/12/05 ICD 867 2250730001 Ampel 24 VertriebsGmbH & Co KG Daka Research Inc.P. 25(1)(b)(e) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 .Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. S. S. Juan Antonio Ramirez Franco Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 27/10/05 ICD 362 637140003 C. Applicant Result 13/12/05 ICD 1055 2941450001 Indecasa. RCD No. Art.A. Juan Antonio Ramirez Franco Art. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 13/12/05 ICD 1071 2981790001 Indecasa. L. Art. Josef Lamy GmbH Sanford.A.

RCD No. S. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 15/09/05 ICD 0552 1295150004 WS Teleshop International Handels GmbH Homeland Housewares. S.A.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No.A. Applicant Result 20/09/05 ICD 396 398470001 PARMANDAND (H. FRITO-LAY TRADING COMPANY Art. CROWN CONFECTIONE RY CO. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 19/09/05 NO IMAGE ICD 0735 980330001 Leng-D'or. LLC. Art..) LTD. Servicios de Distribution e Investigacion SL Art. LTD.K. Art. 25(1)(d) RCD invalid 20/09/05 ICD 0388 1502060002 Leng-D'or. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 .

25(1)(b)(e) Invalidity application rejected (appeal dismissed) DM_EU:8746013_2 . Art. Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 15/09/05 ICD 0537 1295150002 WS Teleshop International Handels GmbH Homeland Housewares. S. LLC. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 15/09/05 ICD 0529 1295150001 WS Teleshop International Handels GmbH Homeland Housewares. Art. Art. Applicant Result 15/09/05 ICD 0545 1295150003 WS Teleshop International Handels GmbH Homeland Housewares. S. LLC. RCD No. LLC. Arluy. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 05/09/05 ICD 0339 583340001 Galletas United Biscuits.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No.A.L.

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

30/08/05

ICD 0297

371890012 ISCA S.p.A

Rodi Comercial S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

30/08/05

ICD 0289

371890011 ISCA S.p.A

Rodi Comercial S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

30/08/05

ICD 0271

371890010 ISCA S.p.A

Rodi Comercial S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

29/07/05

ICD 0347

583340002

Galletas United Biscuits, S.A.

Arluy, S.L.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

29/07/05

ICD 0354

609420001 Arluy, S.L.

Galletas United Biscuits, S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b) (e)

Invalidity application rejected

08/07/05

ICD 0453

1242430013

Aniceto Canamasas Puigibo

Baralan International s.p.a.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

01/07/05 PEPSICO INC.

ICD 0180

744630003

Grupo Promer Mon-Graphic

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid (overturned on appeal)

01/07/05

ICD 0198

744630002

Grupo Promer Mon-Graphic

PEPSICO INC.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

30/06/05 Dentaid, S.L.

ICD 0446

853110003

Sunstar Suisse S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

30/06/05 Dentaid, S.L.

ICD 0438

853110002

Sunstar Suisse S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

20/06/05 Dentaid, S.L.

ICD 0420

853110001

Sunstar Suisse S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

20/06/05

ICD 0172

744630001

Grupo Promer Mon-Graphic

PEPSICO INC.

Art. 25(1)(d)

RCD invalid

DM_EU:8746013_2

C. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 23/05/05 ICD 0248 19120002 Brigitte BreyerLindner Top Teams Merchandising Art. Henckels AG Art. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 23/05/05 ICD 0255 19120003 Brigitte BreyerLindner Top Teams Merchandising Art.H. Applicant Result 14/06/05 NO IMAGE ICD 0263 1073960001 J.A. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 .Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 23/05/05 ICD 0230 19120001 Brigitte BreyerLindner Top Teams Merchandising Art. International Sarl Zwillinge J. RCD No.

RCD No. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 27/04/05 ICD 0123 161830006 Dieter Ljubojevic Dahlmann-Yave Ltd. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 27/04/05 ICD 0107 161830002 Dieter Ljubojevic Dahlmann-Yave Ltd. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid (overturned on appeal) DM_EU:8746013_2 . Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid (overturned on appeal) 27/04/05 ICD 115 161830005 Dieter Ljubojevic Dahlmann-Yave Ltd. Art. Applicant Result 19/05/05 ICD 0586 574920001 VIGNAL SYSTEMS MACROPLASTPECAS TECHNICAS DE PLASTICO. LDA Art.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. Art.

A. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 01/03/05 ICD 0099 203180001 Galletas Gullon S.r. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 22/02/05 ICD 0305 1129330002 Ancieto Canamasas Puigbo INOVO DESIGN S. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 . Art. S.l. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 23/02/05 ICD 0370 1502060001 Leng-D'or. Art. RCD No. LTD.A. S. Art. Art.. SOS Cuetara. CROWN CONFECTIONE RY CO.A. Applicant Result 27/04/05 ICD 0016 161830001 Dieter Ljubojevic Dahlmann-Yave Ltd.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No.

LENG D’Or. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 22/10/04 ICD 0222 814350002 LENG D’Or. S.P. S. KG Art. Art.A.A. Art.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 03/12/04 Isogona. Applicant Result 15/12/04 ICD 0321 605-0001 Enric Pericas Bosch Beton Poetsch GmbH & Co.P. ICD 0065 52690001 CENTREX. Art. S. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 .L.A. Mafin S.U.A. S. RCD No. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 22/10/04 ICD 0214 814350001 Mafin S.A.

25(1)(b) RCD invalid 02/07/04 ICD 0131 555200002 Commercial Opera S. ICD 0149 260590001 LENG D’Or. Art.L. S. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 02/07/04 ICD 0073 555200001 Commercial Opera S. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 .A. RCD No.A. Cata Electrodomestico s S. Art. Art.A.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. Cata Electrodomestico s S. Inc.L. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 20/07/04 ICD 0206 36600001 Adolfo Dzigciot Gustavo Adrian Maniera Art. Applicant Result 08/09/04 NO IMAGE Recot.

25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 14/06/04 ICD 57 224540002 José Mallent Castello 3M Innovative Properties Company Art.L. Applicant Result 02/07/04 NO IMAGE ICD 0156 555200003 Commercial Opera S. 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected DM_EU:8746013_2 .A. Art.A. Cata Electrodomestico s S. RCD No. Cata Electrodomestico s S. Art.L. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 14/06/04 ICD 40 224540001 José Mallent Castello 3M Innovative Properties Company Art. 25(1)(b) RCD invalid 02/07/04 NO IMAGE ICD 0164 555200004 Commercial Opera S.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No.

EREDU S. S. Applicant Result 03/06/04 ICD 32 181480001 Miguel Soriano Sola RIDI Leuchten GmbH Art. RCD No.L.R. 25(1)(d) RCD invalid DM_EU:8746013_2 . 25(1)(b) Invalidity application rejected 27/04/04 ICD 24 35950001 Arrmet.Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds Decision No. COOP Art.

Ram Raiss & Partners (Malaysia) Henning Hartwig. Pepper Hamilton LLP (USA) Dolores Moro. Fuhrer Marbach & Partner (Switzerland) Hanne Weywardt. Di Simone & Partners (Italy) Peter Dernbach. Elzaburu (Spain) Fabio Angelini. Winkler Partners (Taiwan) Caroline Francis. (USA) Rune Pettersson. Brann AB (Sweden) Laurent Venetz. MAQS Law Firm (Denmark) .Chair Laura Alonso Domingo.Annexure A MARQUES Designs Team Members David Stone. Revlon Inc. Bardehle Pagenberg Dost Altenburg Geissler (Germany) Michael Leonard. Nestlé Group (Switzerland) Bernard Volken. Howrey LLP (United Kingdom) .

what evidence was filed? Yes/No If not. 8. 15. national design. 10. Types of evidence and how it is presented Who is “the informed user”? “Individual character” “Overall impression” Any helpful tips for practitioners? Please include image(s). Spanish/English/French/Italian/German Name [Country] Name [Country] Evaluator’s Name . 3. 14. Case No: Date of decision: RCD number: Language Invalidity Applicant: RCD Holder: Panellists: Decision: Nature of design (bottle. 2. 11. magazine publication) Did the panellists hold that the RCD is new? Did the panellists hold that the RCD is of individual character? Comments If relevant. what evidence was filed? RCD Invalid / Invalidity application rejected. 12. car part etc) Image of Design Locarno code (if known) Prior right (CTM. 6. 4. please include here any helpful comments made about: • • • • • 16. biscuit. 7. 9. 13. 5.Annexure B Blank Evaluation Form MARQUES Designs Team Survey of OHIM Decisions of Invalidity 1. Yes/No If not.

.

org . E-mail: info@marques. URL: www. LE4 8BN Tel: +44 116 264 0080.marques. Thurmaston.org. Fax: +44 116 264 0141. 840 Melton Road. Leicester.MARQUES.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful