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

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. 2. 3. Methodology ................................................................................................... 1 Some caveats................................................................................................. 2 Statistics.......................................................................................................... 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4. Languages........................................................................................... 3 Applicants for invalidity ...................................................................... 4 RCD holders........................................................................................ 5 Rate of success .................................................................................. 6 Grounds for invalidity ......................................................................... 6 Nature of the RCD.............................................................................. 6

Analysis........................................................................................................... 8 4.1 4.2 Article 25 (1)(a) ................................................................................... 8 Article 25 (1)(b) ................................................................................... 9 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.2.6 4.2.7 What is being compared? ...................................................... 9 Article 4(2) and (3) .................................................................10 Made available to the public...............................................12 Evidence of disclosure to the public.....................................15 New versus individual character......................................17 New.......................................................................................18 Individual character .............................................................20 4.2.7.1 Who is the informed user? ................................20 4.2.7.2 Design freedom.....................................................22 4.2.7.3 Overall impression .............................................23 Article 8(1)..........................................................................................28 Article 8(2)..........................................................................................28 Article 8(3)..........................................................................................29 Article 9...............................................................................................29 Article 25(1)(c) ...................................................................................29 Article 25(1)(d) ...................................................................................30 Article 25(1)(e) ...................................................................................31 Article 25(1)(f) ....................................................................................35 Article 25(1)(g) ...................................................................................36

4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 5.

Miscellaneous................................................................................................37

ii

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. Evaluators were asked to complete a short form in relation to each invalidity decision reviewed. A blank form is at Annex B. 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. Annex C will be updated from time to time and posted on the MARQUES website.

2.

Some caveats

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

3.

Statistics

The following statistics are offered to try to draw some conclusions from the first 300 decisions. The sample size of 300 is small: any conclusions should be drawn with care. 3.1 Languages

The 300 decisions were given in the following languages: Language English Spanish German Italian French Danish No. 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 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; 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. The number of Spanish language decisions seems to be high. In our earlier Review, we suggested this might be a statistical anomaly because OHIM may have dealt with these decisions first. This now appears not to be the case. 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. The language of the proceedings may be a language other than one of the five working languages of OHIM by agreement between the parties. Thus, one decision is given in Danish. For local disputes (as many of the disputes appear to be) this may well be an option that increases in popularity, 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. Sadly, the rate of translations remains slow. OHIM selects a small number of key decisions each year to translate into the five working languages of OHIM. Therefore many decisions remain (and will remain) available in only one language. The clear statistical interest in English suggests greater resources should be applied to ensure decisions are available in English.

3.2

Applicants for invalidity

120 entities applied for the invalidity of 300 RCDs. Of the entities applying, 18 were natural persons and 102 were corporate entities. 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, with most applicants for invalidity applying for invalidity of more than one design. The highest number of designs challenged in a single dispute (i.e. same parties, same approximate filing date) is 13. The average number of invalidity applications per applicant is 2.53 designs. Calvin Klein has filed the most invalidity applications (16). As noted above, in the first edition of this Review, the apparent over-representation of Spanish applicants for invalidity was noted. This appears to have continued. The argument that this reflects OHIMs greater ease of dealing with Spanish language decisions now seems untenable. 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. (Spanish RCD applicants represent less than 7% of the total RCDs filed, but one in four applicants for invalidity).

It was always anticipated that German entities would be big users of the system (24% of RCDs filed). This is borne out by the statistics on invalidity decisions. 3.3 RCD holders

The RCDs against which applications were made were owned by 118 entities. The nationalities of the RCD holders break down as follows: Country of origin of the RCD holder Spain Italy Germany USA Poland China (incl. 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, a small number of RCD holders made up the bulk of RCDs against which invalidity applications were made. Venilia SA was the entity against whom the most cases had been decided (13). Many of the disputes appear to be local. For example, six RCDs for the shape of microphones were successfully invalidated by a competitor: both the RCD owner and the competitor are based in Latvia. Ten designs owned by a single Turkish entity were attacked. Since the first Review, there has been a noticeable increase in disputes involving Polish parties. As one perhaps might expect, Chinese designers bring invalidity applications less often than their RCDs are attacked by third parties.

3.4

Rate of success

Of the 300 invalidity decisions, 194 invalidated the RCD. 106 did not invalidate the RCD. Thus, invalidity was found in 65% of the first 300 decided cases. This is roughly the same success rate as for the first 150 decided cases (66% invalidity). In our first Review, we posited the view that the rate of invalidity would increase as practitioners better understood the requirements for invalidity. This has not occurred: many of the second tranche of 150 cases would have been filed and argued prior to our first Review. However, we remain hopeful that, as practitioners learn from the earlier errors of others, the rate of successful invalidity proceedings will increase. 3.5 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.

Article 25(1)(b) remains the most popular ground of invalidity, being one of the grounds pleaded in 83% of the cases reviewed. Ignoring the statistically insignificant grounds of Article 25(1)(a), (c) and (f), it is also the least successful ground. Again, we suggest this will improve as the quality of the evidence filed by the invalidating party improves. 3.6 Nature of the RCD

No attempt was made to assess each design by its Locarno classification: these are not indicated in the decisions. Originally, OHIM removed all traces of RCDs that were declared invalid. It was thus not possible to access the RCD records on-line to determine the Locarno classification. This flaw has now thankfully been remedied.

The following broad categories of designs were involved for the RCDs in issue. 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, 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); 2 (clothing and haberdashery); 9 (packaging and containers); 23 (fluid distribution equipment, sanitary, hearing ventilation and air-conditioning equipment); and 99 (miscellaneous, including logos). The filing of logos (as a percentage of total RCD filings) appears to be increasing.

4.

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, RCD owners, applicants for invalidity and practitioners. Better quality invalidity applications would greatly benefit the RCD system. To date, no decision by the Invalidity Division or the Board of Appeal cites a decision on the Regulation by a Community Design Court, although there are now a goodly number of Community Design Court decisions. 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. 4.1 Article 25 (1)(a) Article 25 1. (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);

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, in particular, the lines, contours, colours, shape, texture and/or materials of the product itself and or its ornamentation.

There is only one substantive decision under this Article: The Heating Company BVBA v Tubes Radiatori S.R.L., ICD 2913, 16 February 2007. The designs shown in the RCD appeared to show different products (different heater elements as shown here). RCD

OHIM invalidated the RCD.

4.2

Article 25 (1)(b) Article 25 1. 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;

Article 4 1. A design shall be protected by a Community design to the extent that it is new and has individual character.

4.2.1 What is being compared? The RCD is compared with each prior design/s presented by the applicant for invalidity. Several decisions help to identify what aspects of the RCD are to be considered when making the comparison with the prior design/s. As each case is decided on its facts, care should be taken when seeking to draw solid rules from these decisions. 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, 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, ICD 990, 17 August 2006. 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, for example, Narumi China Corporation v Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd, ICD 1592, 26 January 2006 and Retsch Porzellan GmbH v Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd, ICD 1519, 7 February 2006. The feature of colour can only be compared if the representation of the RCD is recognisable as a coloured representation, e.g. a bright colour is visible by using a coloured background: Retsch Porzellan GmbH v Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd, ICD 1519, 7 February 2006. 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]: BMAG EG v The Procter & Gamble Company, ICD 1758, 15 May 2006. In that case, the black and white RCD was invalidated. However, a relevantly identical challenged RCD that had been filed including colour was upheld, because the prior designs submitted did not include the colours of the RCD in the same ratio: BMAG EG v The Procter & Gamble Company, ICD 1741, 15 May 2006. The material used to create the design should not be taken into consideration when it is not obvious from the representation of the RCD. If no specific
9

material is indicated, the RCD relates to the shape of the design irrespective of the material used to create it: Eredu S Coop v Arrmet SRL, ICD 24, 27 April 2004. The comparison must be of the whole of the RCD with the prior design. In a case involving an underwater propulsion device, 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, Case R 196/2006-3, 1 December 2005. The Board of Appeal noted: The appellant could have sought design protection for the handle alone, 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). 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. The question might well have received an affirmative answer in view of the differences enumerated by the appellant. Since, however, the contested RCD concerns the underwater device as a whole (and not merely the handle), the comparison must be effected between the whole of the earlier design and the whole of the contested RCD. If the two designs are looked at as a whole, the conclusion must be that they produce the same overall impression on the informed user. 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, ICD 1535, 20 February 2006.

These decisions seem to us to be sensible and practical. A tribunal assessing validity (or infringement) of an RCD has only the representation of the RCD to work from. It is therefore important that the aspects of the RCD are taken from the RCD and not, for example, from products made to the design shown in the RCD. 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, and for its enforcement. 4.2.2 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, once it has been incorporated into the complex product, remains visible during normal use of the latter; and

10

(b)

to the extent that those visible features of the component part fulfil in themselves the requirements as to novelty and individual character.

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

11

4.2.3 Made available to the public Article 7 of the Regulation provides: Article 7 1. For the purpose of applying Articles 5 and 6, a design shall be deemed to have been made available to the public if it has been published following registration or otherwise, or exhibited, 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, operating within the Community. The design shall not, however, 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. The Regulation provides that the novelty and individual character of an RCD are to be assessed against prior designs made available to the public, but not including obscure designs. Obscure designs are designs which, in the ordinary course of business, could not reasonably be expected to come to the attention of those operating in the field in the European Union. The decisions reviewed establish that the following are relevant disclosures; i.e., 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, ICD 3093, 26 January 2007. Indeed, in that case, the RCD holders own earlier RCD application was used to invalidate the later RCD application, because the 12 month grace period had been exceeded by 15 days. Disclosure of the design (in this case, a toothbrush) in the official journal of the Japanese Patent Office, one of the worlds most important industrial property offices in terms of volume of applications and registrations of designs: Sunstar Suisse SA v Dentaid SL, ICD 420, 20 June 2005. This was also the case in Narumi China Corporation v Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd, ICD 1592, 26 January 2006, but without reasons or reference to the earlier decision. 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 990, 17 August 2006. This later decision may have been influenced by the fact that the USPTOs databases are available online. OHIM noted in the normal course of business, it is to be expected that the circles specialised in the engine sector in the European Community keep themselves updated in relation to the competitors registered designs in the most relevant countries, as the United States. This line of reasoning appears to have been abandoned in later decisions, for example, Lin Yu Shiu v Lin Chun-Ju, ICD 2905, 3 April 2007 where, in a dispute between two Taiwanese entities, 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. In that case, the panellists may have been influenced by the identity of the designs.

12

A published trade mark application in an EU Member State: C Josef Lamy GmbH v Sanford LP, ICD 362, 27 October 2005. 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-DOr SA v Frito-Lay Trading Company, ICD 735, 19 September 2005. 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, ICD 1568, 8 February 2006. For United States trade mark applications, the date of disclosure will be the date of publication, not the claimed date of first use: I-Feng Kao v Built NY Inc., ICD 2483, 10 October 2006. A published international patent application: Rodi Commercial SA v Vuelta International SpA, ICD 594, 20 December 2005. Showing the product (in this case, an underwater personal propulsion device) at a fair in Munich: Ampel 24 Vertriebs-GmbH & Co KG v Daka Research Inc, ICD 867, 1 December 2005. Publication in newspapers and magazines within the EU: Saulespurens v SIA Scruples, ICD 1329, 23 August 2006. Pictures included in a trade brochure and a magazine: Audi AG v Rder Zeltund Veranstaltungsservice GmbH, ICD 1014, 20 January 2006. A fax showing an image of the design sent to the Czech Republic. 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 552, 15 September 2005. A court application is not evidence of disclosure without evidence that the document was disclosed to the public, and evidence of the date of disclosure: Beata Holdrowicz PANACEUM Import-Export v Bozena Lewicka SZI-BO Export-Import, ICD 2210, 14 March 2007. 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 552, 15 September 2005. 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, ICD 180, 1 July 2005. In that case, OHIM accepted that Grupo Promer Mon-Graphic had confidentially disclosed the design for a promotional item to PepsiCo, which then registered the design as an RCD. OHIM invalidated PepsiCos registration on the basis of other disclosures, but this was overturned on appeal. Perhaps surprisingly the three relevantly identical cases involving PepsiCo are the only ones where a confidential disclosure has been in issue.

13

For designs disclosed within the EU, there appears to be little doubt that the disclosure will become known to the circles specialised in the sector. The issue in these cases is mostly the difficulty of evidencing the disclosure (see below at 4.2.4). However, for disclosures outside the EU, we believe (although not unanimously) that OHIM has been overly generous to foreign designers in finding that, for example, a design published by the Japanese Patent Office would in the normal course of business become known in the EU. It is difficult to understand the basis of this decision without evidence that European toothbrush specialists in fact monitor Japanese Patent Office publications. On an intuitive level, it is understandable that combustion engine designers in the EU may monitor USPTO publications; but OHIM has assumed (imposed) this. Similarly, in Kirschenhofer GmbH v WS Teleshop International Handels-GmbH, ICD 560, 19 January 2006, the Invalidity Division held that it was not necessary to provide evidence that the prior design had been marketed in Europe, holding it sufficient if the design had been exhibited at an important trade fair in China or advertised in the Chinese specialised press. The reason given was that the trade volume between China and Europe is huge. It would be a great pity, and contrary to the intention of the Regulation, if wealthy applicants for invalidity are able to scour the databases of the patent, trade mark and registered design offices of the world to find invalidating prior art, if, in reality, the earlier designs could not be expected to become known to the circles concerned in the EU. This will also overly burden practitioners and tribunals. To us, two important issues require further clarification: (1) Who has the onus of proving lack of relevance of the disclosure? As written, the Regulation provides that any disclosure is relevant except where the disclosure could not reasonably have become known to relevant circles in the EU. This suggests that the onus is on the RCD owner to show that the disclosure is not relevant; i.e., that it could not reasonably have become known to the relevant circles. In this case, applicants for invalidity would be well advised simply to claim the disclosure, leaving the onus on the RCD owner to prove that the disclosure was obscure. If the RCD owner files no submissions, or doesnt satisfactorily meet its onus, OHIM should accept the disclosure, without dealing with the issue of obscurity. Who are the circles specialised in the sector? All bar one, the decisions that consider the issue have, to date, involved prior designs in the same sector as the RCD. In circumstances where the two sectors differ, which would it be? For example, consider the position if an RCD is filed for the handle of a refrigerator and the prior disclosure is of a car door handle. The car door handle could reasonably have become known to car designers in the EU, but not to refrigerator designers. RCDs protect across all sectors (the Locarno classification filed with the RCD is supposed to be irrelevant to its scope of protection). Thus, if the refrigerator handle were allowed to stand as an RCD, it could be enforced against the car door handle design owner who has prior rights. In such circumstances, in our view, the earlier disclosed car handle design should be able to invalidate the later RCD for the fridge door handle.

(2)

14

The issue was considered by OHIM in Supermarked A/S v Ferrari SPA, ICD 842, 13 November 2006, where the RCD for a toy car was invalidated by the prior design of a real car. OHIM did not expressly decide the issue. The case has been appealed to the Board of Appeal. RCD Earlier Right

4.2.4 Evidence of disclosure to the public Of those invalidity applications that have failed, many have failed for not providing sufficient evidence of the prior disclosure. OHIM has been somewhat idiosyncratic in its decisions relating to adequate evidence of disclosure, with, on occasion, a significant volume of different types of disclosure all failing to satisfy OHIM: see, for a good example, Holding C Vlemmix BV v Evan Hellenberg Hubar, ICD 1303, 23 March 2006. Practitioners and applicants for invalidity must assess each piece of evidence filed to ensure it meets OHIMs disclosure criteria. OHIMs 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], as well as documents proving the earlier disclosure of those prior designs. In the absence of more detailed guidance the following pointers are offered from the first 300 decisions. As there is no hearing for invalidity applications, practitioners may consider referencing earlier OHIM decisions in their invalidity application where evidence of disclosure may be in issue. 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, evidence and arguments provided by the parties. OHIM will therefore not look outside the facts and evidence provided to it - there is no taking of judicial notice, even for very obvious prior designs well-known throughout the EU: Grupo Promer Mon-Graphic SA v PepsiCo Inc, ICD 180, 1 July 2005. See also the obvious shell-design snack foods which were upheld in Leng-DOr SA Industria v Recot Inc, ICD 149, 8 September 2004.

15

Documentary evidence of prior rights should be submitted, 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, ICD 297, 30 August 2005. A copyright notice is not evidence of the date of disclosure: Flir System AB v Guangzhou Sat Infrared Technology Co Ltd, ICD 2962, 16 February 2007. Trying to prove the date of a webpage though the date of a hyperlink to it may not be sufficient: Leng DOr SA v Frito-lay Trading Company, ICD 735, 19 September 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, ICD 3184, 11 December 2007. An alternative is to have a print out from the Internet certified by a notary: Prodir SA v Dariusz Libera, ICD 4190, 3 December 2007. A magazine article makes good evidence of disclosure of a design because magazines are usually published and distributed: Leng DOr SA v Crown Confectionary Co Ltd, ICD 388, 20 September 2005. 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, the place or the name of a person who would have received such a catalogue: Andrzey Madrzyk v Wtadystaw Binda and Izabela Misterha, ICD 2681, 23 April 2007. The Board of Appeal appears to have relaxed this draconian stance in Linea Hogar Deco SL v Venilia SA, Case R 1401/2006-3, 22 October 2007. In considering a catalogue which stated 2001 collection, the Board held that it undoubtedly refers to products put on the market in 2001. It was not fatal that only a copy of the catalogue was submitted. The Board may have been influenced by the fact that the catalogue relied on was the RCD holders own catalogue, which it sought to deny ever publishing. A catalogue accompanied by an affidavit demonstrating distribution of the catalogue in Germany, along with delivery notes for the product, will be sufficient evidence of disclosure of the earlier design: Retsch Porzellan GmbH v Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd, ICD 1535, 20 February 2006. 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 3648, 10 October 2007. If the prior disclosure is an RCD, it is not necessary to send a copy with the application for invalidity. OHIM will ex officio include a copy on the file: Built NY Inc v I-Feng Kao, ICD 2038, 8 May 2006. If the prior right is a CTM in a language other than the language of the RCD invalidity proceedings, 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, ICD 2756, 26 July 2007. The decision in Kirschenhofer GmbH v WS Teleshop International HandelsGmbH, ICD 560, 19 January 2006, provides useful guidance on what evidence is not appreciated by OHIM. In that case, written interrogatories of a witness
16

were found by OHIM to infringe the principle of procedural economy. Also, a statutory declaration filed did not meet the formal requirements. Documents which were not in the language of the proceedings were ignored. Where a document is submitted in a language other than the language of the proceedings, the text portions of the document will be ignored; but the image of the design and the date (if in numerals) will still be considered: Dryson AB v Birger Olsson, ICD 941, 17 March 2006. A receipt showing sale of a named font within the EU will be evidence of disclosure to the public, even if the evidence establishing what the named font looks like post-dates the filing of the RCD: Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG v Microsoft Corporation, ICD 743, 6 February 2006. In this case, Microsoft conceded the identity of the earlier font with the RCD, but argued that the earlier font had not been disclosed to the public. Pictures included in a trade brochure and a magazine were held to be sufficient evidence that such a design for buildings was disclosed. 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 Rder Zelt-und Veranstaltungsservice GmbH, ICD 1014, 20 January 2006. 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, ICD 1535, 20 February 2006.

Some of the decisions appear to us to be counter-intuitive and/or pernickety. Sometimes, seemingly obvious evidence is ignored. In circumstances where applicants for invalidity are encouraged not to file masses of evidence, but are not given the opportunity of a hearing or cross-examination of witnesses, applicants for invalidity tread a narrow path. For our part, we would prefer (although not unanimously) OHIM to relax its distrust of witness statements made on behalf of parties to proceedings. Most deponents do not lie. If OHIM considers they might, it should allow cross-examination. However, without accepting the deposed testimony of an officer of a party to invalidity proceedings, it is difficult to see how an entity could cost-effectively prove some prior disclosures. The Board of Appeals acknowledgement that catalogues bearing a date are evidence of disclosure at that date is to be heartily welcomed. 4.2.5 New versus individual character OHIMs decisions separate the notions of novelty and of individual character. This is, in our opinion, the correct approach; these are separate tests, and should be separately considered. The Board of Appeal in Daka Research Inc v Ampel 24 Vertriebs-GmbH & Co KG, Case R 196/2006-3, 1 December 2005, 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. It is in any event clear that novelty and individual character, although
17

presented as separate requirements in Articles 4 to 6 CDR, overlap to some extent. Obviously, if two designs are identical except in immaterial details, they will produce the same overall impression on the informed user. It is equally obvious that, if two designs produce a different overall impression on the informed user, they cannot be identical. In spite of the overlap between novelty and individual character, there are certain differences between the two requirements. The test for novelty is essentially of an objective nature. The Board simply has to decide whether two designs are identical. The only area where difficulties of interpretation might arise is in relation to the term immaterial details. The test for individual character is less straightforward and is likely to give rise to slightly more subjective appraisals. The Board is required to take into account the overall impression on the informed user, having regard to the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design. In our view, little is to be gained by conflating these two distinct concepts. The approach adopted by the Invalidity Division from the beginning of considering the two tests separately is, in our view, the correct one. This point was made clearly by a later Board of Appeal in Imperial International Limited v Handl Cookware Limited, Case R 1456/2006-3, 2 August 2007: Novelty is one ground of invalidity (see Article 5 CDR) and individual character is another (see Article 6 CDR). 4.2.6 New Article 5 of the Regulation provides: Article 5 1. 2. A design shall be considered new if no identical design has been made available to the public. Designs shall be deemed to be identical if their features differ only in immaterial details.

Generally, the decisions on novelty have involved designs that would be considered to be identical in the ordinary sense of that word. Where there have been some minor differences, 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, a radiator) will not be identical: Pictacs Limited v Kamil Korhan Karaglle, ICD 1832, 26 April 2006.

18

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, ICD 8671, 1 December 2005. In a later series of cases involving the same Rapporteur, the difference only in labels (Blue v RS on a microphone) was held to be an immaterial detail, and, thus, the designs were held to be identical: Saulespurens v SIA Scruples, ICD 1329, 23 August 2006. RCD Earlier Right

We prefer the reasoning in Ampel to that in Saulespurens. If the representation of the RCD includes trade marks, these form part of the RCD and must be considered when assessing novelty. Different trade marks are unlikely to be an immaterial detail. If the RCD is filed without trade marks, a product made to the design that includes trade marks may still be identical.

19

4.2.7 Individual character Article 6 of the Regulation provides: Article 6 1. 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.

2. 4.2.7.1 In assessing individual character, the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design shall be taken into consideration. Who is the informed user?

The expression informed user appears three times in the Regulation, in Recital 14 and in Articles 16 and 10. It is therefore a legal construct of some importance, and, we submit, should be interpreted consistently each time it is used. In relation to validity (Article 6), 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, 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. However, only one of the decisions involved prior art from a different field, so the point does not appear to have been argued: see Dansk Supermarked A/S v Ferrari SPA, ICD842, 13 November 2006. Many of the decisions use the expression the informed user is familiar with [the object the subject of the design]. In a case about dolls, no indication is given as to whether the informed user is, for example, an adult (purchaser) or a child (user), finding merely that the informed user is familiar with designs of dolls: Aktiebolaget Design Rubens v Bcklund, ICD 461, 20 December 2005. 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, suggesting that the informed user is not a dog: Mars UK Ltd v Paragon Products BV, ICD 1410, 29 August 2006. Occasionally, the expression the informed user is familiar with [the object the subject of the design] is modified. For example, in Unilever NV v Ice Cream Factory Comaker SA, ICD 2434, 7 March 2007, 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. In Santiago Pons Quintana SA v Alfiere SpA, ICD 2525, 29 March 2007, the informed user of boots was defined as someone who is familiar with boots and knows the limitations imposed by shape and function. 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, Case R 1001/2005-3, 27 October 2006, a case involving metal plates for games.
20

RCD

Earlier Right

The Board of Appeal said: (16) The informed user of the products in question could be a number of different persons. It could be a child in the approximate age range of 5 to 10 years, since the products are promotional items intended for young children. Alternatively, the informed user could be a marketing manager in a company that makes biscuits or potato snacks, 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. (17) It makes little difference which of these categories of person is treated as the informed user. The point is that both will be familiar with the phenomenon of rappers. 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. In Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v Kwang Yang Motor Co Ltd, Case R1337/2006-3, 8 October 2007, the Board of Appeal said, 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, needs for example to buy one and has become informed on the subject by browsing through catalogues of lawnmowers, visiting specialised stores, garden centres; downloading information from the Internet, etc. RCD Earlier Right

Both these cases have been appealed to the CFI.

For our part, the informed user is what the Regulation says an informed user. It is not a person skilled in the art, or a designer, or an expert in the field. Nor is it a casual observer, occasional user, or a moron in a hurry.

21

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. 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, taking into consideration the nature of the product to which the design is applied or in which it is incorporated, and in particular the industrial sector to which it belongs and the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design. In our opinion, 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. Similarly, the attempts of the Board of Appeal to give the informed user personality, even if theoretically, are excessive. In our opinion, following the recital, the informed user is more than familiar with the object the subject of the design. She/he is aware of the design corpus, the particular industrial sector to which the design belongs, and the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design. She/he is a user, not a designer or manufacturer, but the overall impression is from viewing, not using, the design. 4.2.7.2 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, ICD 297, 30 August 2005. The larger the degree of freedom, the more differences will be required to create a different overall impression on the informed user. 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. 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, safe for children and fit to be added to the promoted products. That might be correct if the discussion were extended to all types of promotional items. However, this case is about a particular type of promotional item, namely tazos or rappers. The contested RCD and the respondents RCD belong indisputably to that category. 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. Obviously if the matter is approached in that light the designers freedom is severely constricted. 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, so that a noise will be made if a childs finger presses the centre of the disk. A rapper that does not possess these characteristics is unlikely to be accepted in the marketplace. A designer working within these constraints has little freedom. It follows that even relatively small differences suffice to create a different overall impression.
22

This was again emphasised by the Board of Appeal in Daka Research Inc v Ampel 24 Vertriebs-GmbH & Co KG, Case R 196/2006-3, 1 December 2005, when it noted: The Board is required to take into account the overall impression on the informed user, having regard to the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design. Presumably this means that if the designer had relatively little freedom in developing the design, especially on account of technical constraints, even small differences in relation to earlier designs may be sufficient to endow the design with individual character. The scope of design freedom is an essential element of the invalidity test, and worthy of attention at the time evidence is filed in invalidity proceedings. 4.2.7.3 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 process for assessing overall impression has been the subject of comment. In Eredu S Coop v Arrmet SRL, ICD 0024, 27 April 2004, 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, respectively. To assess the overall impression, 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. In PepsiCo Inc v Grupo Promer Mon-Graphic SA, Case R 1001/2005-3, 27 October 2006, the Board of Appeal provided an example of how overall impression should be assessed: (21) Having clarified the above points, the Board is in a position to compare the contested RCD and the respondents RCD with a view to deciding whether they produce the same overall impression on the informed user, bearing in mind the limited freedom of the designer in developing the design. (22) Both the designs consist of small disks that are almost flat. The respondents disk, when seen from above, has two concentric circles, 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. The other concentric circle is intended to convey the idea that the central area of the disk is raised slightly. The raised part is flat and extends over at least two-thirds of the surface area of the disk. (23) The contested RCD has two additional concentric circles when compared with the respondents RCD. The true significance of these additional concentric circles only becomes apparent when the disk is viewed in profile. They are intended to show that the raised area is not flat but slopes upward in the direction of the centre.
23

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

shape without any need, derived from the function of the product, to resemble an existing one. Despite the freedom of the designer, the overall impression of the RCD is not different from that of the prior design, but it recalls the overall impression of the prior design, as a result of the use of the same type of shape (that of a fir tree) with common features, including verbal elements. The designer was not limited to use such type of shape when designing the RCD. However, it chose to use such shape, which was already anticipated by the prior design disclosed as early as 1967. Therefore, the overall impression produced by the RCD is not different. See also the reasoning given in J Wagner GmbH v Hughes Marie Sanoner, ICD 3168, 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, the impression produced on the informed user by the RCD does not differ from the overall impressions produced by the raised prior designs . As observed correctly by the Applicant, the characteristic features of the challenged RCD are all present in the prior designs. All the designs consist of the same three basic elements, i.e. a bar, a spotlight and a lateral device, 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. Even though the three basic elements are shaped slightly differently and contain some distinguishing details, an informed user will appreciate the basically same construction, configuration and shape of the lighting having three elements with almost the same proportions and placement. The RCD and the prior designs raised all give the same overall impression of a modern, simply shaped sleek stand-alone wireless lighting very different from the usual lamp shapes known for garden lighting. Therefore, the RCD lacks individual character in the meaning of Article 6. (emphasis added). 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. Maybe this information was on the file but not referred to in the decision: maybe it simply reflects the experience of the panellists. A further example comes from Honda Giken Kogyo KK v Wuxi Kipor Power Co Ltd, ICD 2178, 3 April 2007, where the following designs were compared.

25

RCD

Earlier Right

OHIM said: As observed correctly by the Applicant, the characteristic features of the RCD are all present in the prior design. In both cases, the housing is of cubic form with black panels enclosing the central portion of a lighter colour. 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. Most of the differing features are situated in the darker parts of the design. 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. For an example of the comparison made in relation to knock-off or copycat packaging, OHIM said this in Beata Hodrowicz PANACEUM Import-Export v Boena Lewicka SZI-BO Export-Import ICD 2210, 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. He knows that the inscriptions, images and other graphical elements placed on it are necessary to help identify the type of tea contained in it. Thus, he focuses his attention to the significant front sides of the tea packaging, namely the sides with the larger surface for the graphical elements to be placed on them, mostly the higher and the lower front side of the packaging. Although the prior design and the RCD both contain the two large black Chinese characters as well as the cup of tea, the ginger plant, marks and other inscriptions, they produce different overall impressions, because of different significant figurative elements of honeycomb in [the prior design] and ginger roots and germs in the RCD, different arrangement of the graphical elements on the significant sides of the packaging and the intense
26

orange colour of the RCD in comparison to black and white colours of [the prior design]. Due to these differences the two designs produce different overall impressions on the informed user, namely [the prior design] produces an overall impression of a structured graphical design, whereas the RCD produces an overall impression of a much more colourful and figurative design. The first 300 decisions make the following points: Generally, 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, ICD 2467, 1 December 2006. In that case, Burberry owned a CTM as shown: RCD Burberrys CTM

but was unsuccessful in invalidating the RCD for the handbag on the basis of Article 25(1)(b). Burberry may have had greater success under Article 25(1)(e) or Article 25(1)(f). 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, 20 February 2006. The behaviour of a product whilst in use is not part of the appearance of the product, and is therefore not taken into account in assessing overall impression. In Aktiebolaget Design Rubens v Bcklund, ICD 461, 20 December 2005, 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. 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, albeit that the verbal elements were different: Julius Smann Ltd v Jees SRO, ICD3630, 7 November 2007.

27

4.4

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. This Article is included to prevent what would amount to patent protection being offered by the Regulation. Again, there are surprisingly few decisions that reference this Article. In effect, the result has been to read down the protection offered by RCDs, 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, ICD 990, 17 August 2006. If the function of the object made to the design can be achieved by alternative designs, Article 8(1) will not apply: Lindner Recyclingtech GmbH v Lars Fransson, ICD 3150, 3 April 2007, or if the designer had choice among various forms: HK Ruokatalo Group Oyj v Atria Yhtyma Oyj, ICD 1964, 12 September 2006. 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. The mere fact that a technical effect can be achieved another way is sufficient not to invalidate an RCD, even if the other way of achieving the effect may be significantly more difficult, or more expensive, or financially, environmentally or otherwise disadvantageous. 4.5 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, around or against another product so that either product may perform its function. Article 8(2), the must fit exception, was introduced, according to Recital 10 of the Regulation, to guarantee that the interoperability of products of different modes is not hindered by extending protection to the design of mechanical fittings. Only three (related) decisions have considered the Article, and they add little to our understanding of the scope of the Article. In UES AG v Nordson Corporation, ICD 2970, 20 November 2007, the RCD was filed for fluid distribution equipment. Accepting the invalidity applicants position, OHIM held that the features of the RCD must be reproduced in their exact form and dimensions to fit a given device. The argument that a product made to the design can be mounted in different ways did not save the RCD, which was declared invalid.

28

RCD

Invalidity was also argued on the basis of the design being dictated solely by technical function (Article 8(1)) and that, as a component part of a complex product, the RCD was not visible during normal use (Article 4(2)(a)). As the RCD was invalidated on the basis of Article 8(2), these other grounds were not considered. 4.6 Article 8(3)

Article 8(3) of the Regulation provides: Notwithstanding paragraph 2, 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. No decision has considered the meaning of this article. 4.7 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. No RCD has been challenged under this Article, although it is understood OHIM has rejected RCD applications on this basis during absolute grounds examination. Rejected applications are not published, so there is no way of checking. 4.8 4.9 Article 25(1)(c) Article 25(1)(c) of the Regulation provides: Article 25 1. A Community design may be declared invalid only in the following cases: (c) if, by virtue of a court decision, the right holder is not entitled to the Community design under Article 14;

29

Article has only been substantially considered in one decision: ISS Manufacturing Limited v Christian M Andersen, ICD 2855, 6 November 2006. However, as no evidence of any court decision was adduced, the invalidity application failed. 4.10 Article 25(1)(d)

Article 25(1)(d) of the Regulation was originally as follows: Article 25 1. 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, if a priority is claimed, the date of priority of the Community design, and which is protected from a date prior to the said date by a registered Community design or an application for such a design, or by a registered design right of a Member State, or by an application for such a right.

Article 25(1)(d) was amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 891/2006 of 18 December 2006, 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, if the priority is claimed, the date of priority of the Community design, and which is protected from a date prior to the said date: by a registered Community design or an application for such a design;

(i) or (ii) or (iii)

by a registered design right of a Member State, or by an application for such a right;

by a design right registered under the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement concerning the international registration of industrial designs, adopted in Geneva on 2 July 1999, hereinafter referred to as the Geneva Act, which was approved by Council Decision 954/2006 and which has effect in the Community, or by an application for such a right.

Article 25(1)(d) appears designed to protect the position of an owner who files for an RCD (or, now, 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

similar design prior to publication of the earlier application. As the earlier application has not been published at the date the later application was filed, 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. Article 25(1)(d) was the basis for PepsiCo Inc v Grupo Promer Mon-Graphic SA, Case R 1001/2005-3, 27 October 2006. The Board of Appeal stated: (14) The term in conflict with in Article 25(1)(d) is not defined in the legislation. The Invalidity Division took the view that a conflict arises when two designs produce the same overall impression on the informed user. In other words a conflict exists when the earlier design would, if it had been made available to the public before the filing date (the priority date) of the later design, have deprived the later design of individual character within the meaning of Article 6 CDR. That interpretation has been accepted by both the parties and is clearly correct. It may in addition be noted that a conflict would also exist, for the purposes of Article 25(1)(d), if the two designs were identical within the meaning of Article 5 CDR. Thus, the assessment under Article 25(1)(d) is relevantly identical to that under Article 25(1)(b), and the jurisprudence under that Article presumably applies. Given the (current) rapidity with which OHIM publishes RCD applications, SIACO SA v VAPESOL LDA, ICD 3622, 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. However, as the prior design had been published on 21 November 2006 (three weeks after publication and four weeks prior to the RCD application), Article 25(1)(b) applied, but not Article 25(1)(d). Article 25(1)(d) may be of greater practical use where publication of a prior design is deferred, or in relation to national registered design applications which are slower to publish. 4.11 Article 25(1)(e)

Article 25(1)(e) of the Regulation provides: Article 25 1. A Community design may be declared invalid only in the following cases: (e) if a distinctive sign is used in a subsequent design, 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.

Comparatively few applications for invalidity have been made under Article 25(1)(e), which appears to provide a remedy for prior trade mark owners. The decisions suggest:
31

The Invalidity Division will form its own view on the scope of protection provided by the earlier right (in this case, a German trade mark registration) and determine if the RCD would (in this case, as a question of German national trade mark law), infringe the earlier right: Schwan-STABILO v Ningbo Beifa Group Co Ltd, ICD 2426, 24 August 2006. There was no suggestion that expert evidence had been filed: OHIM appeared competent to rule on an issue of German national trade mark law. In Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v Mustapha Bouzekri, ICD 3028, 24 January 2007, the CTM owner (Calvin Klein) had not cited the basis of the law that protected its trade mark, but OHIM remedied the omission by concluding that the relevant article would be Article 9 of the Community Trade Mark Regulation. 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, 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, ICD 1477, 1 March 2006. Where the earlier trade mark includes a device element not reproduced in the RCD, the invalidity application will fail: Flex Equipos de Descanso SA v The Procter & Gamble Company, ICD 2756, 26 July 2007. A prior German three-dimensional trade mark registration is assumed to be a distinctive sign according to Article 25(1)(e), because distinctiveness of that sign was examined pursuant to Section 37(1), Section 8(2) No 1 of the German Trade Marks Act: C Josef Lamy GmbH v Sanford LP, ICD 362, 27 October 2005. Similarly, a registered CTM is deemed to be a distinctive sign: Flex Equipos de Descanso SA v The Procter & Gamble Company, ICD 2756, 26 July 2007.

The decisions under this Article cause us considerable unrest. No assistance is given in the Recitals as to how this article is to be interpreted. However, in light of Article 25(1)(f) dealing with invalidity based on copyright protection, it is likely this article was intended to deal with invalidity based on trade mark protection. Compagnie Gervais Danone SA v Zygmunt Piotrowski, ICD 2947, 20 December 2006 is a good example: Danone was able to invalidate an RCD for packaging that clearly included Danones famous trade mark.

32

RCD

Earlier Right

The invalidated design clearly depicted a beverage product, which fell within the scope of Danones trade mark protection. The Board of Appeal confirmed the Invalidity Divisions finding: Zygmunt Piotrowski v Compagnie Gervais Danone SA, Case R 137/2007-3, 18 September 2007. Similarly, the Flex Equipos de Descanso v The Procter & Gamble Company, ICD 2756, 26 July 2007, referred to above, seems sensible: the registered device trade mark and the design were different, even though both contained the word FLEX. The earlier right did not invalidate the RCD. RCD Earlier Right

However, taken to the next step, we consider OHIM has gone beyond the meaning of the Regulation. In Hee Jung Kim v Zellweger Analytics Limited, ICD 1477, 1 March 2006, also referred to above, the Invalidity Division invalidated the RCD shown on the basis of an International trade mark registration for the word MIDAS, registered with respect to household appliances (among other things). RCD Earlier Right

The Invalidity Divisions reasoning was as follows:

33

Under the Trade Marks Directive, a trade mark must be a sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. MIDAS, being registered, was presumed to be a distinctive sign. 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. The use of MIDAS in the RCD is a use identical to the trade mark. The RCD is a logo design which intrinsically relates to any type of goods and services therefore, 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.

The Invalidity Division invalidated the RCD. The Board of Appeal agreed: Honeywell Analytics Limited v Hee Jung Kim, Case R609/2006-3, 3 May 2007. In our view (although not unanimously), the decision is wrong. RCDs provide a form of registration of designs, providing rights of exclusive use for the RCD holder within the territory of the EU. An RCD does not provide a right to use: it only provides the right to prevent others from using (that is, ownership of an RCD is not a defence to infringement of any intellectual property right). Ignoring for the moment trade marks with reputation, trade mark law provides protection for distinctive signs in relation to goods or services that are identical or similar. Marks without reputation are not protected as against any use, only use which is likely to confuse consumers (confusion being assumed where identical marks are used on identical goods). Thus, it would be perfectly possible for the MIDAS IR and the MIDAS RCD to co-exist, so long as the MIDAS RCD is not used for goods/services similar to those for which the IR is registered. Were the RCD to be so used, the remedy is in trade mark infringement, not invalidity of the RCD. Taken to its (il)logical conclusion, where does the MIDAS decision end? Can the word APPLE, registered for computers, invalidate all RCDs that include the word APPLE, even when used descriptively for the fruit. Examples would be RCDs 251442-0011, 251442-0019, 324371.0056, 324371-0072 or 553276-0002.

34

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, given the many languages of the EU, a national trade mark could be acquired for just about any word, letter or combination of letters, enabling its owner to invalidate a multitude of logo RCDs. There is no requirement in the Regulation that the trade mark be filed earlier than the RCD. Similarly, can OHIMs logic be avoided simply by filing the RCD in a Locarno Class other than 99? If so, this would contradict the requirements in the Regulation that the indication of the design does not affect the RCDs scope of protection. In our opinion, the trade mark law criteria requiring identity or similarity of goods/services must also be met for an RCD to be invalidated. This will be the case where the goods/services are apparent on the face of the RCD, as in the Danone case, but not otherwise. For marks with reputation, it should be necessary to prove that use of the design shown in the RCD would, without due cause, take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark. It should be remembered that Article 25(1)(e) extends beyond trade marks to distinctive signs. Thus, shop signs, trading names or, for example, the laws of passing off could be used, even if the distinctive sign is only of local significance. On OHIMs reasoning, an RCD for a logo could be used throughout the EU for any goods or services, so the entitlement under national law to prevent the use in a small corner of the EU would be enough to invalidate the RCD, even if there is no real commercial conflict. It is to be hoped that the ECJ will significantly narrow the interpretation of this Article. 4.12 Article 25(1)(f)

Article 25(1)(f) of the Regulation provides: Article 25 1. A Community design may be declared invalid only in the following cases:
35

 (f) if the design constitutes an unauthorised use of a work protected under the copyright law of a Member State.

Few of the cases reviewed relied on this ground. From the cases, it is apparent that: In 5th Avenue Designs Division of Covington Industries v Alhambra Internacional, SA, ICD 1451, 18 January 2007, the earlier design was claimed to be protected under copyright law. A copy of the certificate issued by the United States Copyright Office was filed as evidence. OHIM invalidated the RCD, but on other grounds. The Article 25(1)(f) grounds failed because, under Spanish copyright law, for copyright to subsist, the design must be original. The onus of proving invalidity lies within the copyright owner. In this case, it was held that the certificate from the USCO was inadequate to prove originality. The RCD holder had also submitted a court judgment between the parties recognising the lack of originality in the earlier design. However, the application for invalidity succeeded under Article 25(1)(b). The Invalidity Division will not examine whether the prior work was granted copyright protection (in this case, in Germany) if the RCD is not a copy of the prior work. 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 Rder Zeltund Veranstaltungsservice GmbH, ICD 1014, 20 January 2006. Article 25(1)(g)

4.13

Article 25(1)(g) provides: Article 25 1. 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, emblems and escutcheons other than those covered by the said Article 6 ten and which are of particular public interest in a Member State.

No invalidity applications have sought to rely on this Article.

36

5.

Miscellaneous

The following findings may also be of some assistance to practitioners. More than one applicant may jointly apply for invalidity. In a series of decisions, 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. For example, RCD 359724-0001 was a combination of Louis Vuittons CTM 15602 and Calvin Kleins CTM 66753: see Louis Vuitton Malletier and Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v Mustapha Bouzekri, ICD 3077, 26 January 2007. Registered Community Design 359724-0001 Community Trade Marks 15602 and 66753

In Julius Smann Ltd v Jees SRO, ICD 3630, 7 November 2007, the applicant for invalidity specifically requested that OHIM consider invalidity based on Article 25(1)(e) first, before considering Article 25(1)(b). OHIM refused to do so, ruling that where one or more grounds is claimed, it must examine them in the order in which they appear in the Regulation, i.e. 25(1)(a) first, then 25(1)(b), then 25(1)(c) etc. There is nothing in the decision, the Invalidity Guidelines or the Regulation to justify this approach: in our view, an applicant for invalidity is, for the filing fee, entitled to request that OHIM consider all the grounds for invalidity raised. In this case, the applicant for invalidity got the order it wanted, but not on the grounds it requested. This is also inconsistent with other decisions that have dealt with the various grounds not in the order they appear in the Regulation (see, for example, Equipamientos y Materiales Deportivos, S.L. v Benito Julian Jerez Melendez Miguel Angel Gutiez Aguerri, ICD 2087, 19 September 2006.) It will, of course, always be an issue of balancing procedural efficiency and judicial economy with the interests of the parties. However, the following reasons may be appropriately argued if an applicant seeks a ruling on more than one article. First, as a question of procedural fairness and judicial politeness, if a party pleads a ground of invalidity, it should be dealt with. Second, the additional grounds may be of assistance to an applicant in a wider dispute and OHIMs findings may assist in resolving a wider controversy. Third, if on appeal, one ground of invalidity is set aside, the others may still stand. If the Invalidity Division has already determined the issues, referrals back and forth with the Board of Appeal will be avoided.

Ticking the wrong box on OHIMs form when applying for invalidity is not fatal. In Forte Sweden Sp zoo v Zaktad Produkcji Opakowan Rosinski I S-ka
37

Sp zoo, ICD 3648, 10 October 2007, the invalidity applicant ticked the box challenging validity under Article 3(a), whereas the evidence and arguments submitted related to Article 25(1)(b). OHIM considered the application on the basis of Article (25)(1)(b). Indeed, contrary to the Invalidity Guidelines, it is not necessary at all to tick a box on OHIMs form: Imperial International Limited v Handl Cookware Limited, Case R 1456/2006-3, 2 August 2007. In that decision of the Board of Appeal, the statement not novel was held to be a sufficient identification of the grounds of invalidity. Given the apparently large number of mistakes made by practitioners in using OHIMs form, OHIM should be encouraged rapidly to adopt electronic filing for invalidity applications. Similarly, 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, ICD 0529, 15 September 2005. Bad faith is not a ground of invalidity: PepsiCo Inc v Grupo Promer Mon-Graphic SA, Case R 1001/2005-3, 27 October 2006; 5th Avenue Design Division of Covington Industries Inc v Alhambra Internacional SA, ICD 1451, 18 January 2007. 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, ICD 0990, 17 August 2006. In a decision of the Board of Appeal, the Invalidity Divisions reasoning was held to be manifestly insufficient: Imperial International Limited v Handl Cookware Limited, Case R 1456/2006-3, 2 August 2007. In that case, the Invalidity Divisions statement no significant difference can be discerned between the designs did not, according to the Board of Appeal, do sufficient justice to the six pages of detailed observations submitted. In all cases, the losing party has been ordered to bear the costs of the winning party. All invalidated designs were invalidated in their entirety; there were no partial invalidations. 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, ICD 2764, 26 July 2007.

38

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

26/05/08 AS Hallik

ICD 3937

6360710001

Vaasan & Vaasan Oy

Art. 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.

Xoya Limited & Co. KG

Art. 25(1) (d)

RCD invalid

23/05/08

ICD 4679

226030001

Schalbau GmbH

Albright France SARL

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

23/05/08

ICD 4281

3587910004

Presenta Nova d.o.o.

Concept-s Ladenbau & Objektdesign GmbH

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

23/05/08

ICD 4273

3587910003

Presenta Nova d.o.o.

Concept-s Ladenbau & Objektdesign GmbH

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

22/05/08

ICD 4265

3587910002

Presenta Nova d.o.o.

Concept-s Ladenbau & Objektdesign GmbH

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

22/05/08

ICD 4257

3587910001

Presenta Nova d.o.o.

Concept-s Ladenbau & Objektdesign GmbH

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

06/05/08

ICD 3143

3015510001 Knauf S.N.C.

CMCS Group Plc

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

22/04/08 NO IMAGE Valter Nagy

ICD 4448

2586030001

MW 93 Ipari Kereskedelmi s Szolgltat Kft.

Art. 25(1) (b)

Invalidity application rejected

04/04/08

ICD 4422

7169070002

Presenta Nova d.o.o.

Concept-s Ladenbau & Objektdesign GmbH

Art. 25(1) (b)

Invalidity application rejected

02/04/08 NO IMAGE

ICD 4760

7209410001

Pangyrus Limited

RSVP Design Limited

NO IMAGE

Art. 25(1) (b)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

31/03/08 Vra indelov

ICD 4554

6090780001

J. Blaek Sklo Podebrady s.r.o.

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

31/03/08 Vra indelov

ICD 4562

6090780002

J. Blaek Sklo Podebrady s.r.o.

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

31/03/08

ICD 4570

5429150001 Tom Doik

J. Blaek Sklo Podebrady s.r.o.

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

31/03/08

ICD 4588

5429150002

J. Blaek Sklo Podebrady s.r.o.

Tom Doik

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

31/03/08

ICD 4323

6494470009

Link Treasure Limited

ABC Design GmbH

Art. 25(1) (b)

Invalidity application rejected

31/03/08

ICD 4331

6494470010

Link Treasure Limited

ABC Design GmbH

Art. 25(1) (b)

Invalidity application rejected

31/03/08

ICD 4349

6494470011

Link Treasure Limited

ABC Design GmbH

Art. 25(1) (b)

Invalidity application rejected

31/03/08

ICD 3796

3259490001

Punch

Sphere Time International S.A.

Art. 25(1) (b)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

31/03/08

ICD 3804

3259490001

Punch

Sphere Time International S.A.

Art. 25(1) (b)

Invalidity application rejected

31/03/08

ICD 3978

5867480001

Francisco Delgado Ortiz

Camm-Way Accessories S.A.

Art. 25(1) (b) (g)

Invalidity application rejected

31/03/08

ICD 3986

5867480002

Francisco Delgado Ortiz

Camm-Way Accessories S.A.

Art. 25(1) (b) (g)

Invalidity application rejected

31/03/08

ICD 3994

5867480003

Francisco Delgado Ortiz

Camm-Way Accessories S.A.

Art. 25(1) (b) (g)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

31/03/08

ICD 4000

5867480004

Francisco Delgado Ortiz

Camm-Way Accessories S.A.

Art. 25(1) (b) (g)

Invalidity application rejected

31/03/08 HARRON S.A

ICD 3200

2826600001

THD Acoustics Limited

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

31/03/08

ICD 4166

5744620001

CROCS Inc.

DIVISA SISTEMAS GLOBALES S.A

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

31/03/08

ICD 4174

7156440002

CROCS Inc.

DIVISA SISTEMAS GLOBALES S.A

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

31/03/08

ICD 4315

6494470008

Link Treasure Limited

ABC Design GmbH

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

11/03/08

ICD 4364

2466810001 Elasto Form KG

T-Mobile Deutschland GmbH

Art. 25(1) (b)

Invalidity application rejected

10/03/08

ICD 4380

4251780001

DeBe Pumpar AB

MUOVITECH AB

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

10/03/08

ICD 4414

7169070001

Presenta Nova d.o.o.

Concept-s Ladenbau & Objektdesign GmbH

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

28/02/08

ICD 0826

1809970001

Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo DB Design GmbH

Art. 25(1) (b)

Invalidity application rejected

28/02/08

ICD 0834

1809970002

Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo DB Design GmbH

Art. 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

26/02/08

ICD 3911

6466900002

Aroco Commercio E Distribucao

Detumando 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

20/02/08

ICD 4505

3213020002

Stak Plast Ltd.

Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

20/02/08

ICD 4513

3213020003

Stak Plast Ltd.

Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo

Art. 25(1) (b)

Invalidity application rejected

20/02/08

ICD 4521

3213020004

Stak Plast Ltd.

Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

20/02/08

ICD 4539

3213020006

Stak Plast Ltd.

Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo

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

20/02/08 Muovitech AB

ICD 4026

4251780002

DeBe Pumpar AB

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

15/02/08

ICD 3879

6669380006 DCalderoni S.L

Plantillas Rosmar S.L

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

15/02/08

ICD 3887

6669380007 DCalderoni S.L

Plantillas Rosmar S.L

Art. 25(1) (b)

Invalidity application rejected

15/02/08

ICD 3895

6669380008

Plantillas Rosmar S.L

DCalderoni S.L

Art. 25(1) (b)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

12/02/08

ICD 4034

5283770001 Hong Zhang

Stokke AS

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

31/01/08

ICD 3853

1196230001

RH ALURAD Hffken GmbH

Sport-ServiceLorinser Sportliche Autoausrstung GmbH

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

21/01/08

ICD 3929

3342970002

Tzu Hsien Yu

RaidSonic Technology GmbH

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

21/12/07 NO IMAGE

ICD 3812

2054550001

Coop Danmark A/S

Ilse Jacobsen

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

20/12/07 NO IMAGE

ICD 4133

6879000003

HENKEL KGAA

Jees Polska Spka z ograniczon odpowiedzialnoc i

Art. 25(1) (e)

Invalidity application rejected

20/12/07

ICD 4141

6879000004

HENKEL KGAA

Jees Polska Spka z ograniczon odpowiedzialnoc i

Art. 25(1) (e)

Invalidity application rejected

18/12/07

ICD 4042

3540060001

Kittrich Corporation

Rogier Pieter van Kleef and Mouhssine Otmani

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

12/12/07

ICD 3010

2570010001

Holey Soles Holdings Ltd.

CROCS, 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

11/12/07

ICD 3184

4347820001

Euro Fire AB

TARNAVVA Sp. z o.o.

Art. 25(1) (b)

Invalidity application rejected

05/12/07 Casper V Sport

ICD 4182

6944920001

CROCS, INC.

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

05/12/07

ICD 3671

789100001

VALOIS SAS

ars Parfum Creation and Consulting GmbH

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

05/12/07

ICD 3689

789100002

VALOIS SAS

ars Parfum Creation and Consulting GmbH

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

05/12/07

ICD 3697

789100003

VALOIS SAS

ars Parfum Creation and Consulting GmbH

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

05/12/07

ICD 3705

789100004

VALOIS SAS

ars Parfum Creation and Consulting GmbH

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

05/12/07

ICD 3721

789100006

VALOIS SAS

ars Parfum Creation and Consulting GmbH

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

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

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

20/11/07 NO IMAGE

ICD 2996

2329960015 Nordson Corporation

UES AG

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

19/11/07

ICD 2988

4029200001

Carving

O.A.T. OCIDENTAL ARTE EM TAPETES, S.A.

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

19/11/07

ICD 3358

4029200002

Carving

O.A.T. OCIDENTAL ARTE EM TAPETES, S.A.

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

19/11/07

ICD 3366

4029200003

Carving

O.A.T. OCIDENTAL ARTE EM TAPETES, S.A.

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

19/11/07

ICD 3374

4029200004

Carving

O.A.T. OCIDENTAL ARTE EM TAPETES, S.A.

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

07/11/07

ICD 3630

4136610001 JEES S.R.O.

Julius Samann Ltd

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

24/10/07

ICD 3325

5194910001 YOUSSEF EL JIRARI ZIANI

Calvin Klein Trademark Trust

Art. 25(1) (e)

RCD invalid

24/10/07

ICD 3333

5194910002

Calvin Klein Trademark Trust

YOUSSEF EL JIRARI ZIANI

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

19/10/07

ICD 3663

4737720001 PARLUX S.p.A.

Consulting and Trading Alicante

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD invalid

11/10/07

ICD 3259

60510002 Sun Garden GmbH

TaiZhou YongJiang Arts & Crafts Co. Ltd

Art. 25(1) (b)

Invalidity application rejected

11/10/07

ICD 3903

5268010011

Merlin Handelsgesells chaft mbH

DUSYMA Kindergartenbed arf GmbH

Art. 25(1) (b)

Invalidity application rejected

10/10/07

ICD 3408

5839190005

Antecuir, S.L

MICROFIBRES INC

Art. 25(1) (b)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

10/10/07

ICD 3416

6035430002 MICROFIBRES INC

Antecuir, S.L.

Art. 25(1) (b)

Invalidity application rejected

10/10/07 NO IMAGE

ICD 3648

6082370001

Forte Sweden Sp. Zoo

Zakad Produkcji Opakowa Rosiski i

Art. 25(1) (b)

Invalidity application rejected

10/10/07

ICD 3655

6082370002 NO IMAGE

Forte Sweden Sp. Zoo

Zakad Produkcji Opakowa Rosiski i

Art. 25(1) (b)

Invalidity application rejected

04/09/07

ICD 3820

2166920002

Personal Print, S.L.

Hidalgo International B.V

Art. 25(1) (b)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

31/08/07

ICD 3838

2166920001

Personal Print, S.L.

Hidalgo International B.V

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD Invalid

31/08/07

ICD 3846

2166920003

Personal Print, S.L.

Hidalgo International B.V

Art. 25(1) (b)

RCD Invalid

27/08/07 NO IMAGE

ICD 3382

3707050001 Flemming Korshj

Gioros srl

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

02/08/07

ICD 3002

4561400001

Top-Line Moebelprodukti on Mldrup A/S

Thane Direct Company

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

26/07/07

ICD 2756

4732510001

Flex Equipos de Descanso, S.L.

The Procter & Gamble Company

Art. 25(1)(e)

Invalidity application rejected

26/07/07

ICD 2764

4732510004

Flex Equipos de Descanso, S.L.

The Procter & Gamble Company

Art. 25(1)(e)

Invalidity application rejected

25/07/07

ICD 3176

3607480001

Castrol Limited

NORMANPLAST (Socit en nom collectif)

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

24/07/07

ICD 3622

6383090001

SIACO, SA

VAPESOL Fbrica de Componentes

Art. 25 (1)(b)(d)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

24/07/07

ICD 3580

3893330001

CATRAL Export S.L

INTERMAS NETS, S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

24/07/07

ICD 3580

3893330003

CATRAL Export S.L

INTERMAS NETS, S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

24/07/07

ICD 3291 ZILCO Srl

2021550006

Fredericia Furniture

Art. 25(1)(b)(f)

RCD invalid

24/07/07

ICD 3309

2021550007

Fredericia Furniture

ZILCO Srl

Art. 25(1)(b)(f)

RCD invalid

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

10/07/07

ICD 2632

4633440003 MAFIN S.p.A

Freiberger Lebensmittel GmbH & Co

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

04/07/07 Coverpla S.A.

ICD 2670

0291780002

Heinz-Glas GmbH

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

27/06/07

ICD 3267

1708730003 Optotim d.o.o.

Presenta Nova d.o.o.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

27/06/07

ICD 3275

1708730002

Presenta Nova d.o.o.

Optotim d.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

21/06/07

ICD 3283

1708730001 Optotim d.o.o.

Presenta Nova d.o.o.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

21/06/07

ICD 2848

3163100001 TECNID S.P.A.

Wen-Sung Lee

Art. 25(1) (b) CDR

RCD Invalid

23/05/07

ICD 2731

4606960001

ID-Prsente GmbH

Arto Schfer GmbH

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

15/05/07

ICD 3168

4103110001

J. Wagner GmbH

Hughes Marie Sanoner

Art. 25(1) (b) CDR

RCD invalid

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

15/05/07

ICD 2749

3825280008 Arto Schfer GmbH

ID-Prsente GmbH

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

15/05/07

ICD 2723

2736440001

Dr. Oether Polska Sp z.o.o.

Zakad Produkcyjno Handlowy "TROPIC"

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

27/04/07

ICD 2715

4564210001 Colin Campbell

Pavel Blata

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

23/04/07

ICD 2681

4256080001

Andrzey Madrzyk

Wadysaw Binda

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

23/04/07

ICD 2699

4256080008 Wadysaw Binda

Andrzey Madrzyk

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

23/04/07

ICD 2707

4256080015

Andrzey Madrzyk

Wadysaw Binda

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

12/04/07

ICD 2921

3077230005

The Heating Company BVBA CO.GE.FIN S.R.L.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

05/04/07

ICD 2533

3417480006

Santiago Pons Quintana, S.A.

ALFIERE S.p.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

05/04/07 ALFIERE S.p.A.

ICD 2566

3417480009

Santiago Pons Quintana, S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

04/04/07

ICD 2178

3417480004 ALFIERE S.p.A.

Santiago Pons Quintana, S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

04/04/07

ICD 2541

3417480007 ALFIERE S.p.A.

Santiago Pons Quintana, S.A.

Art. 25(1) (b)

Invalidity application rejected

03/04/07

ICD 2178

1711780004

Honda Motor Co. Ltd.

Wuxi Kipor Power Co., Ltd.

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

03/04/07 ALFIERE S.p.A.

ICD 2509

3417480003

Santiago Pons Quintana, S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

03/04/07

ICD 2558

3417480008 ALFIERE S.p.A.

Santiago Pons Quintana, S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

03/04/07

ICD 2772 IPS s.r.l.

2120970006

Bellamy Sas

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

03/04/07

ICD 2905

2656160001

Shiu Lin Yu

Lin Chun-Ju

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

03/04/07

ICD 3150

2537780001 Lars Fransson

Lindner Recyclingtech GmbH.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

2/04/07

ICD 2491

3417480002 ALFIERE S.p.A.

Santiago Pons Quintana, S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

29/03/07

ICD 2525

3417480005 ALFIERE S.p.A.

Santiago Pons Quintana, S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

29/03/07

ICD 3317

4282550001

Calvin Klein Trademark Trust

YOUSSEF EL JIRARI ZIANI

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

23/03/07

ICD 3572

6199860001

Marc Peris Ribera

CASA TARRADELLAS, S. A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

14/03/07

ICD 2210

4131250001

Beata Holdrowicz

Boena Lewicka SZI-BO ExportImport

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

14/03/07

ICD 2590

1535560001

Megaflex, spol s.r.o.

ColopStempelerzeugun g Skopek Gesellschaft m.b.H. & Co. KG

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

07/03/07

ICD 2434

1748340001

Unilever N.V.

ICE CREAM FACTORY COMAKER, S.A.

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

07/03/07

ICD 2442

1748340002

Unilever N.V.

ICE CREAM FACTORY COMAKER, S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD Invalid

07/03/07

ICD 2459

1748340003

Unilever N.V.

ICE CREAM FACTORY COMAKER, S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD Invalid

20/02/07

ICD 2160

366450001 Russell Gee

Cinders Barbecues

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD Invalid

16/02/07

ICD 2913

1693700002

The Heating Company BVBA

TUBES RADIATORI S.R.L.

Art. 25(1)(a)

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 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 Alpenlndische VeredelungsIndustrie Gesellschaft m.b.H.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

16/02/07

ICD 3234

502160002

Drahtwerke Plochinger GmbH

AVI Alpenlndische VeredelungsIndustrie Gesellschaft m.b.H.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

16/02/07

ICD 3226

502160003

Drahtwerke Plochinger GmbH

AVI Alpenlndische 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 Alpenlndische VeredelungsIndustrie Gesellschaft m.b.H.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

30/01/07

ICD 3069

3778250001

Calvin Klein Trademark Trust

MUSTAPH EL JIRARI BOUZEKRI

Art. 25(1)(e)

RCD invalid

30/01/07

ICD 3051

3621570001

Calvin Klein Trademark Trust

MUSTAPH EL JIRARI BOUZEKRI

Art. 25(1)(e)

RCD invalid

30/01/07

ICD 3044

4262180003

LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER / Calvin Klein Trademark Trust

MUSTAPH 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

MUSTAPH EL JIRARI BOUZEKRI

Art. 25(1)(e)

RCD invalid

26/01/07

ICD 3135

1488870004

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

Art. 25(1)(e)

RCD invalid

26/01/07

ICD 3127

1488870003

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

Art. 25(1)(e)

RCD invalid

26/01/07

ICD 3119

1488870002

LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER / Calvin Klein Trademark Trust

MUSTAPH 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

26/01/07

ICD 3101

1488870001

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

Art. 25(1)(e)

RCD invalid

26/01/07

ICD 3093

3597240003

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

Art. 25(1)(e)

RCD invalid

26/01/07

ICD 3085

3597240002

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

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

26/01/07

ICD 3077

3597240001

LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER / Calvin Klein Trademark Trust

MUSTAPH 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

24/01/07

ICD 3028

4262180001

Calvin Klein Trademark Trust.

MUSTAPH EL JIRARI BOUZEKRI

Art. 25(1)(e)

Invalidity application rejected

18/01/07

ICD 1451

1321390017

5th Avenue Designs Division of Covington

ALHAMBRA INTERNACIONA L, S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

18/01/07

ICD 1444

1321390016

5th Avenue Designs Division of Covington

ALHAMBRA INTERNACIONA L, S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

18/01/07

ICD 1436

1321390014

5th Avenue Designs Division of Covington

ALHAMBRA INTERNACIONA L, S.A.

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

18/01/07

ICD 1428

1321390012

5th Avenue Designs Division of Covington

ALHAMBRA INTERNACIONA L, S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

20/12/06

ICD 2954

3393120003

Companie Gervais Danone

Zygmunt Piotrowski

Art. 25(1)(e)

RCD invalid

20/12/06

ICD 2947

3393120002

Companie Gervais Danone

Zygmunt Piotrowski

Art. 25(1)(e)

RCD invalid

20/12/06

ICD 2939

3393120001

Companie Gervais Danone

Zygmunt Piotrowski

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

20/12/06 Matthias Mller

ICD 2244

1898570002

Investment Consulting Service Co Ltd

Art. 25(1)(e)

RCD invalid

12/12/06

ICD 2863

2548750001

Tadeusz Kropielnicki

Andrzej Zaleszczuk

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

12/12/06

ICD 2475

3230840013

Reflex S.p.A.

FIAM ITALIA S. p. A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

01/12/06

ICD 1766

3261110001

Giuliana Savoldi

Casellato Luciano

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

01/12/06

ICD 1774

3261110002

Giuliana Savoldi

Casellato Luciano

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

01/12/06

ICD 2467

2532730001

Burberry Ltd.

Jimmy Meykranz

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

01/12/06 NO IMAGE

ICD 2608

3000170037

TEVEA B.V

MASSIVE, NV

Inadmissible

Invalidity application rejected

01/12/06 NO IMAGE

ICD 2616

3000170038

TEVEA B.V

MASSIVE, NV

Inadmissible

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

01/12/06 NO IMAGE MASSIVE, NV

ICD 2624

3000170053

TEVEA B.V

Inadmissible

Invalidity application rejected

30/11/06

ICD 1212

2993180001 Mladen Pintur

Concept-s Ladenbau & Objectdesign

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

30/11/06

ICD 1220

2993180002 Mladen Pintur

Concept-s Ladenbau & Objectdesign

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

24/11/06

ICD 2780

644070001

SIPEM S.R.L.

Magic Dreams S.r.l.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

24/11/06

ICD 2798

644070002

SIPEM S.R.L.

Magic Dreams S.r.l.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

24/11/06

ICD 2806

644070003

SIPEM S.R.L.

Magic Dreams S.r.l.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

24/11/06

ICD 2814

644070004

SIPEM S.R.L

Magic Dreams S.r.l.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

24/11/06

ICD 2822

644070005

SIPEM S.R.L.

Magic Dreams S.r.l.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

24/11/06

ICD 2830

644070006

SIPEM S.R.L.

Magic Dreams S.r.l.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

24/11/06

ICD 1089

2188470001

Michael Sandktter

Christoph Sandktter

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

24/11/06

ICD 1154

2158760001

Michael Sandktter

Christoph Sandktter

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

23/11/06

ICD 2418

4288420010

Mecalde 2, S.A.

PLASTIMODUL, 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

22/11/06

ICD 1097

2188470002

Michael Sandktter

Christoph Sandktter

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

22/11/06

ICD 1105

2188470003

Michael Sandktter

Christoph Sandktter

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

21/11/06

ICD 1113

2188470004

Michael Sandktter

Christoph Sandktter

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

21/11/06

ICD 2392

4288420008

Mecalde 2, S.A.

PLASTIMODUL, 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

21/11/06

ICD 1139

2188470006

Michael Sandktter

Christoph Sandktter

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

15/11/06

ICD 2400

4288420009

Mecalde 2, S.A.

PLASTIMODUL S.L.

Art. 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.P.A.

Art. 25(1)(d)

RCD invalid

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

13/11/06

ICD 2368

4288420005

Mecalde 2, S.A.

PLASTIMODUL, S.L.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

13/11/06

ICD 2376

4288420006

Mecalde 2, S.A.

PLASTIMODUL, S.L.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

13/11/06

ICD 2384

4288420007

Mecalde 2, S.A.

PLASTIMODUL, S.L.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

10/11/06

ICD 1121

2188470005

Michael Sandktter

Christoph Sandktter

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

10/11/06

ICD 2310

3212940001

Myrurgia S.A.

MIGUEL ANGEL MIRA NAVARRO

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

10/11/06

ICD 2327

4288420001

Mecalde 2, S.A.

PLASTIMODUL, S.L.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

10/11/06

ICD 2335

4288420002

Mecalde 2, S.A.

PLASTIMODUL, S.L

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

10/11/06

ICD 2343

4288420003

Mecalde 2, S.A

PLASTIMODUL, 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

10/11/06

ICD 2350

4288420004

Mecalde 2, S.A

PLASTIMODUL, S.L.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

10/11/06

ICD 1386

2896320002

Leng-D'or, S.A.

MAFIN S.p.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

06/11/06 No image

ICD 2855

5186260001 Christian M. Andersen

ISS Manufacturing Limited

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

23/10/06

ICD 1394

2896320003

Leng-D'or, S.A.

MAFIN S.p.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds MAFIN S.p.A.

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

23/10/06 No image

ICD 1402

2896320004

Leng-D'or, S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

10/10/06 No image Built NY, Inc.

ICD 2483

2106790002

I-Feng Kao

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

04/10/06

ICD 2228

3208090001

Arbonia AG

Atlantic Socit Franaise de Developpment Thermique

Art. 25(1)(f)

Invalidity application rejected

29/09/06

ICD 2871

4336440001

HANSA Metallwerke AG

Carlo Klinger

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

29/09/06 Carlo Klinger

ICD 2889

4336440002

HANSA Metallwerke AG

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

29/09/06

ICD 2897

4336440003 Carlo Klinger

HANSA Metallwerke AG

Art. 25(1)(b),

RCD invalid

22/09/06 Calmoda, S.L.

ICD 2574

3468610003

Camper, S.L.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

22/09/06

ICD 2665

3468610015

Camper, S.L.

Calmoda, 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

20/09/06 Calmoda, S.L.

ICD 2657

3468610013

Camper, S.L.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

19/09/06

ICD 1972

3787570008 Venilia, S.A.

Linea Hogar Deco, S.L.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

19/09/06

ICD 1980

3787570010 Venilia, S.A.

Linea Hogar Deco, S.L.

Art. 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. 25(1)(b)(d)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

18/09/06

ICD 2194

3446010001

Zhenguang Yan

Europea De Ceramicas, S.L.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

15/09/06

ICD 1469

2149030001

Bosch Security Systems B.V.

Taiden Industrial (Sehnzen) Co., Ltd.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

14/09/06

ICD 1931

3136550003

Mecalde 2, S.A.

Herrajes y Sistemas Belkriss, S.L.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

13/09/06

ICD 1642

3787570001

Linea Hogar Deco, S.L.

Venilia, S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

13/09/06 Venilia, S.A.

ICD 1659

3787570002

Linea Hogar Deco, S.L.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

13/09/06

ICD 1667

3787570003 Venilia, S.A.

Linea Hogar Deco, S.L.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

13/09/06

ICD 1675

3787570004 Venilia, S.A.

Linea Hogar Deco, S.L.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

13/09/06

ICD 1683

37570005

Linea Hogar Deco, S.L.

Venilia, S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

13/09/06 Venilia, S.A.

ICD 1691

3787570006

Linea Hogar Deco, S.L.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

13/09/06

ICD 1709

3787570007 Venilia, S.A.

Linea Hogar Deco, S.L.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

13/09/06 Venilia, S.A.

ICD 1717

3787570009

Linea Hogar Deco, S.L.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

13/09/06

ICD 1725

3787570011

Linea Hogar Deco, S.L.

Venilia, S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

13/09/06 Venilia, S.A.

ICD 1733

3787570012

Linea Hogar Deco, S.L.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

13/09/06

ICD 1816

3787570013 Venilia, S.A.

Linea Hogar Deco, S.L.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

13/09/06

ICD 2202

1230130001

Handl Cookware Limited

Imperial International Limited

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

12/09/06

ICD 1956

3307820001

HK Ruokatalo Group Oyi

Atria Yhtyma Oyj

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

12/09/06

ICD 1964

3307820002 Atria Yhtyma Oyj

HK Ruokatalo Group Oyi

Art. 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)

Invalidity application rejected

31/08/06

ICD 2186

1711780005

Honda Motor Co. Ltd.

Wuxi Kipor Power Co., Ltd

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

31/08/06

ICD 2640

2736930001

Societe BIC

Baide International Europe s.r.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

30/08/06

ICD 1006

1632900002

Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

29/08/06

ICD 1410

1961670003

Mars UK Limited

Paragon Products BV

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

24/08/06

ICD 2426

3523150007 Ningbo Beifa Group Co., Ltd

SchwanSTABILO Schwanhuer GmbH

Art. 25(1)(e)

RCD invalid

23/08/06

ICD 1329

2882200001

Martin Saulespurens

SIA Scruples

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

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. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

23/08/06 SIA Scruples

ICD 1352

2882200004

Martin Saulespurens

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

23/08/06

ICD 1360

2882200005

Martin Saulespurens

SIA Scruples

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

23/08/06 SIA Scruples

ICD 1378

2882200006

Martin Saulespurens

Art. 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

17/08/06

ICD 0990

1632900001

Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha. Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd.

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)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

15/05/06

ICD 1741

2887330001

Bmag EG

The Procter & Gamble Company

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

15/05/06

ICD 1758

2887330002

Bmag EG

The Procter & Gamble Company

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

08/05/06 I-Feng Kao

ICD 2038

2641300001

Built NY Inc

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

08/05/06

ICD 2046

2641300002

Built NY Inc

I-Feng Kao

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

08/05/06 I-Feng Kao

ICD 2053

3875840003

Built NY Inc

Art. 25(1)(d)

Invalidity application rejected

03/05/06

ICD 2095

3875840001 I-Feng Kao

Built NY Inc

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

03/05/06 I-Feng Kao

ICD 2103

3875840002

Built NY Inc

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

26/04/06

ICD 1824

3304020001

Pitacs Limited

Kamil Korhan Karaglle

Art. 25(1)(d)

RCD invalid

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

26/04/06

ICD 1832

3304020002

Pitacs Limited

Kamil Korhan Karaglle

Art. 25(1)(d)

RCD invalid

26/04/06

ICD 1840

3304020003 Kamil Korhan Karaglle

Pitacs Limited

Art. 25(1)(d)

RCD invalid

26/04/06

ICD 1857

3304020008

Pitacs Limited

Kamil Korhan Karaglle

Art. 25(1)(d)

RCD invalid

26/04/06

ICD 1865

3304020009

Pitacs Limited

Kamil Korhan Karaglle

Art. 25(1)(d)

RCD invalid

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

26/04/06

ICD 1873

3304020012

Pitacs Limited

Kamil Korhan Karaglle

Art. 25(1)(d)

RCD invalid

26/04/06

ICD 1881

3304020013

Pitacs Limited

Kamil Korhan Karaglle

Art. 25(1)(d)

RCD invalid

26/04/06

ICD 1899

3304020014 Kamil Korhan Karaglle

Pitacs Limited

Art. 25(1)(d)

RCD invalid

26/04/06

ICD 1824

3304020015

Pitacs Limited

Kamil Korhan Karaglle

Art. 25(1)(d)

RCD invalid

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

26/04/06

ICD 1832

3304020002

Pitacs Limited

Kamil Korhan Karaglle

Art. 25(1)(d)

RCD invalid

26/04/06

ICD 1923

3304020017

Pitacs Limited

Kamil Korhan Karaglle

Art. 25(1)(d)

RCD invalid

29/03/06

ICD 1782

3702000001

Monika Barber

J&J Decor Spolka z o.o.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

23/03/06 No Image

ICD 1303

3122020001

ABHolding C. Vlemmix B.V.

E. van Hellenburg Hubar

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

17/03/06 Birger Olsson

ICD 0941

0001998 72-0001

Dryson AB

Art. 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 Birger Olsson

ICD 0966

1998720003

Dryson AB

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

17/03/06

ICD 0974

1998720004

Dryson AB

Birger Olsson

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

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. Gera 259

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

01/03/06

ICD 1477

1624250001 Zellweger Analytics Limited

Hee Jung Kim

Art. 25(1)(e)

RCD invalid

01/03/06

ICD 1485

1624250002

Hee Jung Kim

Zellweger Analytics Limited

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

01/03/06

ICD 1493

1624250003 Zellweger Analytics Limited

Hee Jung Kim

Art. 25(1)(e)

RCD invalid

01/03/06

ICD 1501

1624250004 Zellweger Analytics Limited

Hee Jung Kim

Art. 25(1)(e)

RCD invalid

20/02/06

ICD 1535

2129070005

Retch Porzellan

Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

20/02/06

ICD 1543

2129070007

Retch Porzellan

Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd.

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

20/02/06

ICD 1550

2129070008 Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd.

Retch Porzellan

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

10/02/06

ICD 0602

1071150003

Rodi Comercial S.A.

Vuelta International S.P.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

08/02/06

ICD 1568

2864300001

Burberry Ltd

Creaciones Camal, S.L

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

RCD invalid

07/02/06

ICD 1519

2129070002

Retch Porzellan

Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

07/02/06

ICD 1527

2129070004

Retch Porzellan

Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd.

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

06/02/06

ICD 0750

1199610002 Microsoft Corporation

Heidelberger Druckmaschine n AG

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

06/02/06

ICD 0768

1199610003

Heidelberger Druckmaschine n AG

Microsoft Corporation

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

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. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

06/02/06

ICD 0792

1199610006

Heidelberger Druckmaschine n AG Microsoft Corporation

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

06/02/06

ICD 0800

1199610007

Heidelberger Druckmaschine n AG

Microsoft Corporation

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

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

26/01/06

ICD 1600

2283330011

Narumi China Corporation

Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

26/01/06

ICD 1618

2283330012

Narumi China Corporation

Kennex (Hong Kong) Ltd.

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

20/01/06

ICD 1014

278260001

Audi AG

Roder Zelt- und Veranstaltungsse rvice GmbH

Art. 25(1)(b)(f)

Invalidity application rejected

19/01/06 NO IMAGE

ICD 0560

494240001

Kirschenhofer Gesellschaft m.b.H.

WS Teleshop International Handels-GmbH

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

16/01/06

ICD 0891

2534970004

Kennex (Hong Kong) LTD

Retsch Porzellan GmbH

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

16/01/06

ICD 0909

2534970005

Kennex (Hong Kong) LTD

Retsch Porzellan GmbH

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

16/01/06

ICD 0917

2534970006

Kennex (Hong Kong) LTD

Retsch Porzellan GmbH

Art. 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. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

13/01/06

ICD 0875

2083350001

Iberlamp Light S.L.

Lorefar , s.l.u.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

20/12/05

ICD 0461

933560001

Aktiebolaget Design Rubens Sweden

Marie Ekman Backlund, BrittMarie Jakobsson

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

20/12/05

ICD 0479

933560002

Aktiebolaget Design Rubens Sweden

Marie Ekman Backlund, BrittMarie Jakobsson

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

20/12/05

ICD 0487

933560003

Aktiebolaget Design Rubens Sweden Marie Ekman Backlund, BrittMarie Jakobsson

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

20/12/05

ICD 0495

933560004

Aktiebolaget Design Rubens Sweden

Marie Ekman Backlund, BrittMarie Jakobsson

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

20/12/05

ICD 0503

933560007

Aktiebolaget Design Rubens Sweden

Marie Ekman Backlund, BrittMarie Jakobsson

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

20/12/05

ICD 0511

933560010

Aktiebolaget Design Rubens Sweden

Marie Ekman Backlund, BrittMarie Jakobsson

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

20/12/05

ICD 0594

1071150002

Rodi Comercial S.A.

Vuelta International S.P.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

20/12/05

ICD 1063

2941520002

Indecasa, S.A.

Juan Antonio Ramirez Franco

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

13/12/05

ICD 1055

2941450001

Indecasa, S.A.

Juan Antonio Ramirez Franco

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

13/12/05

ICD 1071

2981790001

Indecasa, S.A.

Juan Antonio Ramirez Franco

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

01/12/05

ICD 867

2250730001

Ampel 24 VertriebsGmbH & Co KG Daka Research Inc.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

27/10/05

ICD 362

637140003

C. Josef Lamy GmbH

Sanford, L.P.

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

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

20/09/05

ICD 396

398470001 PARMANDAND (H.K.) LTD.

Servicios de Distribution e Investigacion SL

Art. 25(1)(d)

RCD invalid

20/09/05

ICD 0388

1502060002

Leng-D'or, S.A.

CROWN CONFECTIONE RY CO., LTD.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

19/09/05 NO IMAGE

ICD 0735

980330001

Leng-D'or, S.A.

FRITO-LAY TRADING COMPANY

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

15/09/05

ICD 0552

1295150004

WS Teleshop International Handels GmbH

Homeland Housewares, LLC.

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

15/09/05

ICD 0545

1295150003

WS Teleshop International Handels GmbH

Homeland Housewares, LLC.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

15/09/05

ICD 0537

1295150002

WS Teleshop International Handels GmbH

Homeland Housewares, LLC.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

15/09/05

ICD 0529

1295150001

WS Teleshop International Handels GmbH

Homeland Housewares, LLC.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

05/09/05

ICD 0339

583340001

Galletas United Biscuits, S.A.

Arluy, S.L.

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

Invalidity application rejected (appeal dismissed)

DM_EU:8746013_2

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

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

14/06/05 NO IMAGE

ICD 0263

1073960001 J.C.H. International Sarl

Zwillinge J.A. Henckels AG

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

23/05/05

ICD 0255

19120003

Brigitte BreyerLindner

Top Teams Merchandising

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

23/05/05

ICD 0248

19120002

Brigitte BreyerLindner

Top Teams Merchandising

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

23/05/05

ICD 0230

19120001

Brigitte BreyerLindner

Top Teams Merchandising

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

19/05/05

ICD 0586

574920001

VIGNAL SYSTEMS

MACROPLASTPECAS TECHNICAS DE PLASTICO, LDA

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

27/04/05

ICD 0123

161830006

Dieter Ljubojevic

Dahlmann-Yave Ltd.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid (overturned on appeal)

27/04/05

ICD 115

161830005

Dieter Ljubojevic

Dahlmann-Yave Ltd.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

27/04/05

ICD 0107

161830002

Dieter Ljubojevic

Dahlmann-Yave Ltd.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid (overturned on appeal)

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

27/04/05

ICD 0016

161830001

Dieter Ljubojevic

Dahlmann-Yave Ltd.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

01/03/05

ICD 0099

203180001

Galletas Gullon S.A.

SOS Cuetara, S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

23/02/05

ICD 0370

1502060001

Leng-D'or, S.A.

CROWN CONFECTIONE RY CO., LTD.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

22/02/05

ICD 0305

1129330002

Ancieto Canamasas Puigbo

INOVO DESIGN S.r.l.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

15/12/04

ICD 0321

605-0001

Enric Pericas Bosch

Beton Poetsch GmbH & Co. KG

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

03/12/04 Isogona, S.L.

ICD 0065

52690001

CENTREX, S.A.U.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

22/10/04

ICD 0214

814350001 Mafin S.P.A.

LENG DOr, S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

22/10/04

ICD 0222

814350002

LENG DOr, S.A.

Mafin S.P.A.

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

08/09/04 NO IMAGE Recot, Inc.

ICD 0149

260590001

LENG DOr, S.A.

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

20/07/04

ICD 0206

36600001

Adolfo Dzigciot

Gustavo Adrian Maniera

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

02/07/04

ICD 0073

555200001

Commercial Opera S.A.

Cata Electrodomestico s S.L.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

02/07/04

ICD 0131

555200002

Commercial Opera S.A.

Cata Electrodomestico s 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

02/07/04 NO IMAGE

ICD 0156

555200003

Commercial Opera S.A.

Cata Electrodomestico s S.L.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

02/07/04 NO IMAGE

ICD 0164

555200004

Commercial Opera S.A.

Cata Electrodomestico s S.L.

Art. 25(1)(b)

RCD invalid

14/06/04

ICD 40

224540001

Jos Mallent Castello

3M Innovative Properties Company

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

14/06/04

ICD 57

224540002

Jos Mallent Castello

3M Innovative Properties Company

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

DM_EU:8746013_2

Here Date of Decision Earlier Right RCD Owner RCD Grounds

Decision No.

RCD No.

Applicant

Result

03/06/04

ICD 32

181480001

Miguel Soriano Sola

RIDI Leuchten GmbH

Art. 25(1)(b)

Invalidity application rejected

27/04/04

ICD 24

35950001 Arrmet, S.R.L.

EREDU S. COOP

Art. 25(1)(d)

RCD invalid

DM_EU:8746013_2

Annexure A MARQUES Designs Team Members

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

Annexure B Blank Evaluation Form

MARQUES Designs Team

Survey of OHIM Decisions of Invalidity
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Case No: Date of decision: RCD number: Language Invalidity Applicant: RCD Holder: Panellists: Decision: Nature of design (bottle, biscuit, car part etc) Image of Design Locarno code (if known) Prior right (CTM, national design, 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, please include here any helpful comments made about: 16. 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). Yes/No If not, what evidence was filed? Yes/No If not, what evidence was filed? RCD Invalid / Invalidity application rejected. Spanish/English/French/Italian/German Name [Country] Name [Country]

Evaluators Name

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