registered community designs
TRANSCRIPT
A Review of the First 300 Decisions
on the Validity of
Registered Community Designs(Second Edition)
MARQUES, 840 Melton Road, Thurmaston, Leicester, LE4 8BNTel: +44 116 264 0080, Fax: +44 116 264 0141, E-mail: [email protected], URL: www.marques.org
MARQUES Designs Team22 February 2008
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 [email protected].
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
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Methodology ................................................................................................... 1
2. Some caveats................................................................................................. 2
3. Statistics.......................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Languages........................................................................................... 3
3.2 Applicants for invalidity ...................................................................... 4 3.3 RCD holders........................................................................................ 5
3.4 Rate of success .................................................................................. 6
3.5 Grounds for invalidity ......................................................................... 6
3.6 Nature of the RCD .............................................................................. 6 4. Analysis........................................................................................................... 8
4.1 Article 25 (1)(a) ................................................................................... 8
4.2 Article 25 (1)(b) ................................................................................... 9 4.2.1 What is being compared? ...................................................... 9 4.2.2 Article 4(2) and (3) .................................................................10 4.2.3 “Made available to the public”...............................................12 4.2.4 Evidence of disclosure to the public.....................................15 4.2.5 “New” versus “individual character”......................................17 4.2.6 “New”.......................................................................................18 4.2.7 “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
4.4 Article 8(1) ..........................................................................................28
4.5 Article 8(2) ..........................................................................................28
4.6 Article 8(3) ..........................................................................................29
4.7 Article 9...............................................................................................29
4.8 Article 25(1)(c) ...................................................................................29
4.9 Article 25(1)(d) ...................................................................................30
4.10 Article 25(1)(e) ...................................................................................31 4.11 Article 25(1)(f) ....................................................................................35
4.12 Article 25(1)(g) ...................................................................................36
5. Miscellaneous................................................................................................37
1
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
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 OHIM’s website. The Design Team wishes to thank Pedro Rodinger of OHIM for his assistance in accessing Board of Appeal decisions.
3
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 No. of RCD invalidity decisions
English 115 Spanish 80 German 60 Italian 41 French 3 Danish 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.
4
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
No of applicants for
invalidity
No of designs
Spain 32 83 Germany 24 55 UK 8 17 USA 6 26 France 6 14 Portugal 5 10 Netherlands 5 9 Sweden 4 12 Italy 4 10 Switzerland 4 9 Poland 4 5 Austria 3 6 Denmark 3 4 China 3 3 Taiwan 3 3 Japan 2 7 Hong Kong 2 6 Czech Republic 2 2 Belgium 2 2 Latvia 1 6 Korea 1 4 Croatia 1 4 Finland 1 2 Canada 1 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 OHIM’s 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).
5
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
No of RCD holders
No of designs
Spain 25 78 Italy 18 40 Germany 16 38 USA 11 29 Poland 10 18 China (incl. Hong Kong) 9 20 France 4 4 Sweden 3 12 Taiwan 3 8 UK 3 7 Austria 3 6 Portugal 3 6 Netherlands 2 2 Denmark 2 2 Turkey 1 11 Latvia 1 6 Croatia 1 3 Finland 1 2 Korea 1 2 BVI 1 1 Canada 1 1 Switzerland 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.
6
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
Invalid Invalidity application
rejected Article 25(1)(a) 1 - Article 25(1)(b) 154 101 Article 25(1)(c) - 1 Article 25(1)(d) 15 3 Article 25(1)(e) 22 6 Article 25(1)(f) 2 1 Article 25(1)(g) - - 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.
7
The following broad categories of designs were involved for the RCDs in issue.
Nature of the RCD Invalid Invalidity application
rejected
Total
Clothing 36 14 50 Electricals 35 10 45 Containers and packaging
20 14 34
Games/toys/dolls 12 12 24 Food and beverages 9 12 21 Ornamentation 12 7 19 Building/structure 17 10 17 Lights 12 4 16 Furniture 9 6 15 Kitchenware 11 4 15 Fonts 8 - 8 Stationery 5 3 8 Vehicles, parts & tools 4 4 8 Tools 5 2 7 Logo/label 4 2 6 Medical/dental devices 1 5 6 Lighters 1 - 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.
8
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 Community design may be declared invalid only in the following cases:
(a) 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.
9
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]”: BÜMAG 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: BÜMAG 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
10
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
11
(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.”
12
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 holder’s 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 world’s 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 USPTO’s 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 competitor’s 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.
13
• 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-D’Or 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 Röder Zelt- und 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 PepsiCo’s 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.
14
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 doesn’t satisfactorily meet its onus, OHIM should accept the disclosure, without dealing with the issue of obscurity.
(2) 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.
15
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 OHIM’s disclosure criteria. OHIM’s Guidelines for the Proceedings Relating to a Declaration of Invalidity of a Registered Community Design (the Invalidity Guidelines) obliquely indicate that the application for invalidity under Article 25(1)(b):
“must contain an indication and reproduction of the prior design(s) that could form an obstacle to the novelty or individual character of the contested [RCD], 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-D’Or SA Industria v Recot Inc, ICD 149, 8 September 2004.
16
• 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 D’Or 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 D’Or 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 holder’s 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 Handels- GmbH, ICD 560, 19 January 2006, provides useful guidance on what evidence is not appreciated by OHIM. In that case, written interrogatories of a witness
17
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 Röder 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 Appeal’s 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”
OHIM’s 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
18
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. A design shall be considered new if no identical design has been made available to the public.
2. 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 Karagülle, ICD 1832, 26 April 2006.
19
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”.
20
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. In assessing individual character, the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design shall be taken into consideration.
4.2.7.1 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 Bäcklund, 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”.
21
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 “internal-combustion 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”.
22
Who the informed user is will differ from product to product: the informed user of a ballet slipper may well be a different theoretical entity to the informed user of a scientific instrument or a household item.
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 respondent’s 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 designer’s 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 child’s 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.”
23
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 respondent’s 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 respondent’s 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 respondent’s 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.
24
(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 Sämann 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
25
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:
“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.
RCD Earlier Right
26
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 Hołdrowicz PANACEUM Import-Export v Bożena 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
27
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 Burberry’s 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 Bäcklund, 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 Sämann Ltd v Jees SRO, ICD3630, 7 November 2007.
28
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 applicant’s 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.
29
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 Article 25(1)(c)
4.9 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;
30
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:
(i) by a registered Community design or an application for such a design;
or
(ii) by a registered design right of a Member State, or by an application for such a right;
or
(iii) 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
31
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:
32
• 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 Danone’s famous trade mark.
33
RCD Earlier Right
The invalidated design clearly depicted a beverage product, which fell within the scope of Danone’s trade mark protection. The Board of Appeal confirmed the Invalidity Division’s 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 Division’s reasoning was as follows:
34
• 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.
35
251442-0011 251442-0019 324371-0056 324371-0072 553276-0002
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 OHIM’s 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 RCD’s 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 OHIM’s 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:
36
…
(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 Röder Zelt-und Veranstaltungsservice GmbH, ICD 1014, 20 January 2006.
4.13 Article 25(1)(g)
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.
37
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 Vuitton’s CTM 15602 and Calvin Klein’s 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 Sämann 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 OHIM’s 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 OHIM’s form when applying for invalidity is not fatal. In Forte Sweden Sp zoo v Zaktad Produkcji Opakowan Rosinski I S-ka
38
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 OHIM’s 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 OHIM’s 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 Division’s 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 Division’s 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.
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
26/0
5/08
IC
D 3
937
6360
71-
0001
V
aasa
n &
V
aasa
n O
y
AS
Hal
lik
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
26/0
5/08
IC
D 3
937
6360
71-
0002
V
aasa
n &
V
aasa
n O
y
AS
Hal
lik
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
26/0
5/08
IC
D 4
158
4890
75-
0001
A
pple
Inc
.
Xoy
a Li
mite
d &
C
o. K
G
Art
. 25(
1) (
d)
RC
D
inva
lid
23/0
5/08
IC
D 4
679
2260
3-00
01
Sch
alba
u G
mbH
Alb
right
Fra
nce
SA
RL
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
23/0
5/08
IC
D 4
281
3587
91-
0004
P
rese
nta
Nov
a d.
o.o.
Con
cept
-s
Lade
nbau
&
Obj
ektd
esig
n G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
23/0
5/08
IC
D 4
273
3587
91-
0003
P
rese
nta
Nov
a d.
o.o.
Con
cept
-s
Lade
nbau
&
Obj
ektd
esig
n G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
22/0
5/08
IC
D 4
265
3587
91-
0002
P
rese
nta
Nov
a d.
o.o.
Con
cept
-s
Lade
nbau
&
Obj
ektd
esig
n G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
22/0
5/08
IC
D 4
257
3587
91-
0001
P
rese
nta
Nov
a d.
o.o.
Con
cept
-s
Lade
nbau
&
Obj
ektd
esig
n G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
06/0
5/08
IC
D 3
143
3015
51-
0001
C
MC
S G
roup
P
lc
Kna
uf S
.N.C
.
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
22/0
4/08
IC
D 4
448
2586
03-
0001
MW
93
Ipar
i K
eres
kede
lmi é
s
Szo
lgál
tató
K
ft.
NO
IMA
GE
V
alte
r N
agy
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
04/0
4/08
IC
D 4
422
7169
07-
0002
P
rese
nta
Nov
a d.
o.o.
Con
cept
-s
Lade
nbau
&
Obj
ektd
esig
n G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
02/0
4/08
IC
D 4
760
7209
41-
0001
P
angy
rus
Lim
ited
NO
IMA
GE
R
SV
P D
esig
n Li
mite
d N
O IM
AG
E
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
31/0
3/08
IC
D 4
554
6090
78-
0001
J. B
laže
k S
klo
Pod
ebra
dy
s.r.
o.
Věr
a Š
inde
lářo
vá
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
31/0
3/08
IC
D 4
562
6090
78-
0002
J. B
laže
k S
klo
Pod
ebra
dy
s.r.
o.
Věr
a Š
inde
lářo
vá
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
31/0
3/08
IC
D 4
570
5429
15-
0001
J. B
laže
k S
klo
Pod
ebra
dy
s.r.
o.
Tom
áš D
ořič
ák
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
31/0
3/08
IC
D 4
588
5429
15-
0002
J. B
laže
k S
klo
Pod
ebra
dy
s.r.
o.
Tom
áš D
ořič
ák
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
31/0
3/08
IC
D 4
323
6494
47-
0009
Li
nk T
reas
ure
Lim
ited
AB
C D
esig
n G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
31/0
3/08
IC
D 4
331
6494
47-
0010
Li
nk T
reas
ure
Lim
ited
AB
C D
esig
n G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
31/0
3/08
IC
D 4
349
6494
47-
0011
Li
nk T
reas
ure
Lim
ited
AB
C D
esig
n G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
31/0
3/08
IC
D 3
796
3259
49-
0001
P
unch
Sph
ere
Tim
e In
tern
atio
nal S
.A.
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
31/0
3/08
IC
D 3
804
3259
49-
0001
P
unch
Sph
ere
Tim
e In
tern
atio
nal S
.A.
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
31/0
3/08
IC
D 3
978
5867
48-
0001
F
ranc
isco
D
elga
do O
rtiz
Cam
m-W
ay
Acc
esso
rie
s S
.A.
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
(g)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
31/0
3/08
IC
D 3
986
5867
48-
0002
F
ranc
isco
D
elga
do O
rtiz
Cam
m-W
ay
Acc
esso
rie
s S
.A.
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
(g)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
31/0
3/08
IC
D 3
994
5867
48-
0003
F
ranc
isco
D
elga
do O
rtiz
Cam
m-W
ay
Acc
esso
rie
s S
.A.
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
(g)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
31/0
3/08
IC
D 4
000
5867
48-
0004
F
ranc
isco
D
elga
do O
rtiz
Cam
m-W
ay
Acc
esso
rie
s S
.A.
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
(g)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
31/0
3/08
IC
D 3
200
2826
60-
0001
T
HD
Aco
ustic
s Li
mite
d
HA
RR
ON
S.A
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
31/0
3/08
IC
D 4
166
5744
62-
0001
C
RO
CS
Inc
.
DIV
ISA
S
IST
EM
AS
G
LOB
ALE
S S
.A
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
31/0
3/08
IC
D 4
174
7156
44-
0002
C
RO
CS
Inc
.
DIV
ISA
S
IST
EM
AS
G
LOB
ALE
S S
.A
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
31/0
3/08
IC
D 4
315
6494
47-
0008
Li
nk T
reas
ure
Lim
ited
AB
C D
esig
n G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
11/0
3/08
IC
D 4
364
2466
81-
0001
T-M
obile
D
euts
chla
nd
Gm
bH
Ela
sto
For
m K
G
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
10/0
3/08
IC
D 4
380
4251
78-
0001
D
eBe
Pum
par
AB
M
UO
VIT
EC
H A
B
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
10/0
3/08
IC
D 4
414
7169
07-
0001
P
rese
nta
Nov
a d.
o.o.
Con
cept
-s
Lade
nbau
&
Obj
ektd
esig
n G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
28/0
2/08
IC
D
0826
18
0997
-00
01
Ani
ceto
C
anam
asas
P
uigb
o
DB
Des
ign
Gm
bH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
28/0
2/08
IC
D 0
834
1809
97-
0002
Ani
ceto
C
anam
asas
P
uigb
o
DB
Des
ign
Gm
bH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
28/0
2/08
IC
D 4
455
7268
31-
0001
Ani
ceto
C
anam
asas
P
uigb
o
Min
g-K
un T
sai
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
26/0
2/08
IC
D 3
911
6466
90-
0002
Aro
co –
C
omm
erci
o E
D
istr
ibuc
ao
Det
uman
do S
.L
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
20/0
2/08
IC
D 4
505
3213
02-
0002
S
tak
Pla
st L
td.
Ani
ceto
C
anam
asas
P
uigb
o
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
20/0
2/08
IC
D 4
513
3213
02-
0003
S
tak
Pla
st L
td.
Ani
ceto
C
anam
asas
P
uigb
o
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
20/0
2/08
IC
D 4
521
3213
02-
0004
S
tak
Pla
st L
td.
Ani
ceto
C
anam
asas
P
uigb
o
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
20/0
2/08
IC
D 4
539
3213
02-
0006
S
tak
Pla
st L
td.
Ani
ceto
C
anam
asas
P
uigb
o
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
20/0
2/08
IC
D 4
026
4251
78-
0002
D
eBe
Pum
par
AB
Muo
vite
ch A
B
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
15/0
2/08
IC
D 3
879
6669
38-
0006
P
lant
illas
R
osm
ar S
.L
D’C
alde
roni
S.L
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
15/0
2/08
IC
D 3
887
6669
38-
0007
P
lant
illas
R
osm
ar S
.L
D’C
alde
roni
S.L
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
15/0
2/08
IC
D 3
895
6669
38-
0008
P
lant
illas
R
osm
ar S
.L
D’C
alde
roni
S.L
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
12/0
2/08
IC
D 4
034
5283
77-
0001
S
tokk
e A
S
Hon
g Z
hang
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
31/0
1/08
IC
D 3
853
1196
23-
0001
R
H A
LUR
AD
H
öffk
en G
mbH
Spo
rt-S
ervi
ce-
Lori
nser
S
port
liche
A
utoa
usrü
stun
g G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
21/0
1/08
IC
D 3
929
3342
97-
0002
T
zu H
sien
Yu
Rai
dSon
ic
Tec
hnol
ogy
Gm
bH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
21/1
2/07
IC
D 3
812
2054
55-
0001
C
oop
Dan
mar
k A
/S
NO
IMA
GE
Ils
e Ja
cobs
en
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
20/1
2/07
IC
D 4
133
6879
00-
0003
H
EN
KE
L K
GA
A
NO
IMA
GE
Jees
Pol
ska
Spółk
a z
ogra
nicz
oną
odpo
wie
dzia
lnoś
cią
Art
. 25(
1) (
e)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
20/1
2/07
IC
D 4
141
6879
00-
0004
H
EN
KE
L K
GA
A
Jees
Pol
ska
Spółk
a z
ogra
nicz
oną
odpo
wie
dzia
lnoś
cią
Art
. 25(
1) (
e)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
18/1
2/07
IC
D 4
042
3540
06-
0001
K
ittric
h C
orpo
ratio
n
Rog
ier
Pie
ter
van
Kle
ef a
nd
Mou
hssi
ne
Otm
ani
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
12/1
2/07
IC
D 3
010
2570
01-
0001
H
oley
Sol
es
Hol
ding
s Lt
d.
CR
OC
S, I
NC
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
11/1
2/07
IC
D 3
184
4347
82-
0001
E
uro
Fir
e A
B
TA
RN
AV
VA
Sp.
z
o.o.
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
05/1
2/07
IC
D 4
182
6944
92-
0001
C
RO
CS
, IN
C.
Cas
per
V S
port
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
05/1
2/07
IC
D 3
671
7891
0-00
01
VA
LOIS
SA
S
ars
Par
fum
C
reat
ion
and
Con
sulti
ng G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
05/1
2/07
IC
D 3
689
7891
0-00
02
VA
LOIS
SA
S
ars
Par
fum
C
reat
ion
and
Con
sulti
ng G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
05/1
2/07
IC
D 3
697
7891
0-00
03
VA
LOIS
SA
S
ars
Par
fum
C
reat
ion
and
Con
sulti
ng G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
05/1
2/07
IC
D 3
705
7891
0-00
04
VA
LOIS
SA
S
ars
Par
fum
C
reat
ion
and
Con
sulti
ng G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
05/1
2/07
IC
D 3
713
7891
0-00
05
VA
LOIS
SA
S
ars
Par
fum
C
reat
ion
and
Con
sulti
ng G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
05/1
2/07
IC
D 3
721
7891
0-00
06
VA
LOIS
SA
S
ars
Par
fum
C
reat
ion
and
Con
sulti
ng G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
05/1
2/07
IC
D 3
737
7891
0-00
07
VA
LOIS
SA
S
ars
Par
fum
C
reat
ion
and
Con
sulti
ng G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
05/1
2/07
IC
D 3
742
7891
0-00
08
VA
LOIS
SA
S
ars
Par
fum
C
reat
ion
and
Con
sulti
ng G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
05/1
2/07
IC
D 3
754
7891
0-00
09
VA
LOIS
SA
S
ars
Par
fum
C
reat
ion
and
Con
sulti
ng G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
30/1
1/07
IC
D 4
190
6161
07-
0012
P
rodi
r S
.A.
DA
RIU
SZ
LI
BE
RA
ALS
O
TR
AD
ING
AS
D
RE
AM
PE
N
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
30/1
1/07
IC
D 4
208
6161
07-
0013
P
rodi
r S
.A.
DA
RIU
SZ
LI
BE
RA
ALS
O
TR
AD
ING
AS
D
RE
AM
PE
N
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
30/1
1/07
IC
D 4
216
6161
07-
0014
P
rodi
r S
.A
DA
RIU
SZ
LI
BE
RA
ALS
O
TR
AD
ING
AS
D
RE
AM
PE
N
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
30/1
1/07
IC
D 4
224
6161
07-
0015
P
rodi
r S
.A.
DA
RIU
SZ
LI
BE
RA
ALS
O
TR
AD
ING
AS
D
RE
AM
PE
N
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
28/1
1/07
IC
D 3
424
2376
56-
0006
C
onra
d E
lect
roni
c S
E
Lena
Lig
htin
g S
p.
z o.
o.
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
26/1
1/07
IC
D 4
240
6466
90-
0001
Aro
co-
Com
erci
o E
D
istr
ibuc
ao
DE
TU
MA
ND
O,
S.L
.
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
26/1
1/07
IC
D 4
059
5563
78-
0001
Cal
vin
Kle
in
Tra
dem
ark
Tru
st
YO
US
SE
F E
L JI
RA
RI Z
IAN
I
Art
. 25(
1)(
e )
R
CD
in
valid
20/1
1/07
IC
D 2
970
2329
96-
0001
U
ES
AG
N
O IM
AG
E
Nor
dson
C
orpo
ratio
n
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
20/1
1/07
IC
D 2
988
2329
96-
0008
U
ES
AG
N
O IM
AG
E
Nor
dson
C
orpo
ratio
n A
rt. 2
5(1)
(b)
R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
20/1
1/07
IC
D 2
996
2329
96-
0015
U
ES
AG
N
O IM
AG
E
Nor
dson
C
orpo
ratio
n A
rt. 2
5(1)
(b)
R
CD
in
valid
19/1
1/07
IC
D 2
988
4029
20-
0001
C
arvi
ng
O.A
.T.
- O
CID
EN
TA
L A
RT
E E
M
TA
PE
TE
S,
S.A
.
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
19/1
1/07
IC
D 3
358
4029
20-
0002
C
arvi
ng
O.A
.T.
- O
CID
EN
TA
L A
RT
E E
M
TA
PE
TE
S,
S.A
.
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
19/1
1/07
IC
D 3
366
4029
20-
0003
C
arvi
ng
O.A
.T.
- O
CID
EN
TA
L A
RT
E E
M
TA
PE
TE
S,
S.A
.
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
19/1
1/07
IC
D 3
374
4029
20-
0004
C
arvi
ng
O.A
.T.
- O
CID
EN
TA
L A
RT
E E
M
TA
PE
TE
S,
S.A
.
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
07/1
1/07
IC
D 3
630
4136
61-
0001
Ju
lius
Sam
ann
Ltd
JEE
S S
.R.O
.
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
24/1
0/07
IC
D 3
325
5194
91-
0001
Cal
vin
Kle
in
Tra
dem
ark
Tru
st
YO
US
SE
F E
L JI
RA
RI Z
IAN
I
Art
. 25(
1) (
e)
RC
D
inva
lid
24/1
0/07
IC
D 3
333
5194
91-
0002
Cal
vin
Kle
in
Tra
dem
ark
Tru
st
YO
US
SE
F E
L JI
RA
RI Z
IAN
I
Art
. 25(
1) (
e)
RC
D
inva
lid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
19/1
0/07
IC
D 3
663
4737
72-
0001
Con
sulti
ng a
nd
Tra
ding
A
lican
te
PA
RLU
X S
.p.A
.
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
11/1
0/07
IC
D 3
259
6051
-00
02
Tai
Zho
u Y
ongJ
iang
Art
s &
Cra
fts
Co.
Lt
d
Sun
Gar
den
Gm
bH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
11/1
0/07
IC
D 3
903
5268
01-
0011
Mer
lin
Han
dels
gese
llsch
aft m
bH
DU
SY
MA
K
inde
rgar
tenb
edar
f G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
10/1
0/07
IC
D 3
408
5839
19-
0005
A
ntec
uir,
S.L
MIC
RO
FIB
RE
S
INC
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
10/1
0/07
IC
D 3
416
6035
43-
0002
A
ntec
uir,
S.L
.
MIC
RO
FIB
RE
S
INC
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
10/1
0/07
IC
D 3
648
6082
37-
0001
F
orte
Sw
eden
S
p. Z
oo
NO
IMA
GE
Z
akła
d P
rodu
kcji
Opa
kow
ań
Ros
ińsk
i i
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
10/1
0/07
IC
D 3
655
6082
37-
0002
F
orte
Sw
eden
S
p. Z
oo
NO
IMA
GE
Z
akła
d P
rodu
kcji
Opa
kow
ań
Ros
ińsk
i i
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
04/0
9/07
IC
D 3
820
2166
92-
0002
P
erso
nal P
rint
, S
.L.
Hid
algo
In
tern
atio
nal B
.V
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
31/0
8/07
IC
D 3
838
2166
92-
0001
P
erso
nal P
rint
, S
.L.
Hid
algo
In
tern
atio
nal B
.V
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
Inva
lid
31/0
8/07
IC
D 3
846
2166
92-
0003
P
erso
nal P
rint
, S
.L.
Hid
algo
In
tern
atio
nal B
.V
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
RC
D
Inva
lid
27/0
8/07
IC
D 3
382
3707
05-
0001
G
ioro
s sr
l N
O IM
AG
E
Fle
mm
ing
Kor
shø
j
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
02/0
8/07
IC
D 3
002
4561
40-
0001
Top
-Lin
e M
oebe
lpro
dukt
ion
Mø
ldru
p A
/S
Tha
ne D
irec
t C
ompa
ny
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
26/0
7/07
IC
D 2
756
4732
51-
0001
Fle
x E
quip
os
de D
esca
nso
, S
.L.
The
P
roct
er &
Gam
ble
Com
pany
Art
. 25(
1)(e
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
26/0
7/07
IC
D 2
764
4732
51-
0004
Fle
x E
quip
os
de D
esca
nso
, S
.L.
The
P
roct
er &
Gam
ble
Com
pany
Art
. 25(
1)(e
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
25/0
7/07
IC
D 3
176
3607
48-
0001
C
astr
ol L
imite
d
NO
RM
AN
PLA
ST
(S
ocié
té e
n no
m
colle
ctif)
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
24/0
7/07
IC
D 3
622
6383
09-
0001
S
IAC
O,
SA
VA
PE
SO
L –
Fáb
rica
de
Com
pone
ntes
Art
. 25
(1)(
b)(d
)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
24/0
7/07
IC
D 3
580
3893
33-
0001
C
AT
RA
L E
xpor
t S
.L
INT
ER
MA
S
NE
TS
, S.A
.
A
rt. 2
5(1)
(b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
24/0
7/07
IC
D 3
580
3893
33-
0003
C
AT
RA
L E
xpor
t S
.L
INT
ER
MA
S
NE
TS
, S.A
.
A
rt. 2
5(1)
(b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
24/0
7/07
IC
D
3291
20
2155
-00
06
Fre
deri
cia
Fur
nitu
re
ZIL
CO
Srl
Art
. 25
(1)(
b)(f
) R
CD
in
valid
24/0
7/07
IC
D
3309
20
2155
-00
07
Fre
deri
cia
Fur
nitu
re
ZIL
CO
Srl
Art
. 25
(1)(
b)(f
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
10/0
7/07
IC
D 2
632
4633
44-
0003
Fre
iber
ger
Lebe
nsm
ittel
G
mbH
& C
o
MA
FIN
S.p
.A
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
04/0
7/07
IC
D 2
670
0291
78-
0002
H
einz
-Gla
s G
mbH
Cov
erpl
a S
.A.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
27/0
6/07
IC
D 3
267
1708
73-
0003
P
rese
nta
Nov
a d.
o.o.
Opt
otim
d.o
.o.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
27/0
6/07
IC
D 3
275
1708
73-
0002
P
rese
nta
Nov
a d.
o.o.
Opt
otim
d.o
.o.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
21/0
6/07
IC
D 3
283
1708
73-
0001
P
rese
nta
Nov
a d.
o.o.
Opt
otim
d.o
.o.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
21/0
6/07
IC
D 2
848
3163
10-
0001
W
en-S
ung
Lee
TE
CN
ID S
.P.A
.
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
CD
R
RC
D
Inva
lid
23/0
5/07
IC
D 2
731
4606
96-
0001
ID
-Prä
sent
e G
mbH
Art
o S
chäf
er
Gm
bH
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
15/0
5/07
IC
D 3
168
4103
11-
0001
J.
Wag
ner
Gm
bH
Hug
hes
Mar
ie
San
oner
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
CD
R
RC
D
inva
lid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
15/0
5/07
IC
D 2
749
3825
28-
0008
ID
-Prä
sent
e G
mbH
Art
o S
chäf
er
Gm
bH
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
15/0
5/07
IC
D 2
723
2736
44-
0001
Dr.
Oet
her
Pol
ska
Sp
z.o.
o.
Zakła
d P
rodu
kcyj
no -
H
andl
owy
"TR
OP
IC"
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
27/0
4/07
IC
D 2
715
4564
21-
0001
P
avel
Bla
ta
Col
in C
ampb
ell
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
23/0
4/07
IC
D 2
681
4256
08-
0001
A
ndrz
ey
Mad
rzyk
Wła
dysł
aw
Bin
da
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
23/0
4/07
IC
D 2
699
4256
08-
0008
A
ndrz
ey
Mad
rzyk
Wła
dysł
aw
Bin
da
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
23/0
4/07
IC
D 2
707
4256
08-
0015
A
ndrz
ey
Mad
rzyk
Wła
dysł
aw
Bin
da
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
12/0
4/07
IC
D 2
921
3077
23-
0005
The
Hea
ting
Com
pany
B
VB
A
CO
.GE
.FIN
S
.R.L
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
05/0
4/07
IC
D
2533
34
1748
-00
06
San
tiago
Pon
s Q
uint
ana,
S.A
.
ALF
IER
E S
.p.A
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
05/0
4/07
IC
D 2
566
3417
48-
0009
S
antia
go P
ons
Qui
ntan
a, S
.A.
ALF
IER
E S
.p.A
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
04/0
4/07
IC
D 2
178
3417
48-
0004
S
antia
go P
ons
Qui
ntan
a, S
.A.
ALF
IER
E S
.p.A
.
Art
. 25
(1)(
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
04/0
4/07
IC
D 2
541
3417
48-
0007
S
antia
go P
ons
Qui
ntan
a, S
.A.
ALF
IER
E S
.p.A
.
Art
. 25(
1) (
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
03/0
4/07
IC
D 2
178
1711
78-
0004
H
onda
Mot
or
Co.
Ltd
.
Wux
i Kip
or
Pow
er C
o.,
Ltd.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
03/0
4/07
IC
D 2
509
3417
48-
0003
S
antia
go P
ons
Qui
ntan
a, S
.A.
ALF
IER
E S
.p.A
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
03/0
4/07
IC
D 2
558
3417
48-
0008
S
antia
go P
ons
Qui
ntan
a, S
.A.
ALF
IER
E S
.p.A
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
03/0
4/07
IC
D
2772
21
2097
-00
06
Bel
lam
y S
as
IPS
s.r
.l.
Art
. 25
(1)(
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
03/0
4/07
IC
D 2
905
2656
16-
0001
S
hiu
Lin
Yu
Lin
Chu
n-Ju
Art
. 25
(1)(
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
03/0
4/07
IC
D 3
150
2537
78-
0001
Lind
ner
Rec
yclin
gtec
h G
mbH
.
Lars
Fra
nsso
n
Art
. 25
(1)(
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
2/04
/07
ICD
249
1 34
1748
-00
02
San
tiago
Pon
s Q
uint
ana,
S.A
.
ALF
IER
E S
.p.A
.
Art
. 25
(1)(
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
29/0
3/07
IC
D 2
525
3417
48-
0005
S
antia
go P
ons
Qui
ntan
a, S
.A.
ALF
IER
E S
.p.A
.
Art
. 25
(1)(
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
29/0
3/07
IC
D 3
317
42
8255
-00
01
Cal
vin
Kle
in
Tra
dem
ark
Tru
st
YO
US
SE
F E
L JI
RA
RI Z
IAN
I
Art
. 25(
1)(e
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
23/0
3/07
IC
D 3
572
61
9986
-00
01
Mar
c P
eris
R
iber
a
CA
SA
T
AR
RA
DE
LLA
S,
S.
A.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
14/0
3/07
IC
D 2
210
4131
25-
0001
B
eata
H
oldr
owic
z
Boż
ena
Lew
icka
S
ZI-
BO
Exp
ort-
Impo
rt
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
14/0
3/07
IC
D 2
590
1535
56-
0001
M
egaf
lex,
spo
l s.
r.o.
Col
op-
Ste
mpe
lerz
eugu
ng
Sko
pek
Ges
ells
chaf
t m
.b.H
. & C
o. K
G
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
07/0
3/07
IC
D 2
434
1748
34-
0001
U
nile
ver
N.V
.
ICE
CR
EA
M
FA
CT
OR
Y
CO
MA
KE
R,
S.A
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
In
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
07/0
3/07
IC
D 2
442
1748
34-
0002
U
nile
ver
N.V
.
ICE
CR
EA
M
FA
CT
OR
Y
CO
MA
KE
R,
S.A
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
In
valid
07/0
3/07
IC
D 2
459
1748
34-
0003
U
nile
ver
N.V
.
ICE
CR
EA
M
FA
CT
OR
Y
CO
MA
KE
R,
S.A
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
In
valid
20/0
2/07
IC
D 2
160
3664
5-00
01
Cin
ders
B
arbe
cues
Rus
sell
Gee
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
In
valid
16/0
2/07
IC
D 2
913
1693
70-
0002
The
Hea
ting
Com
pany
B
VB
A
TU
BE
S
RA
DIA
TO
RI
S.R
.L.
Art
. 25(
1)(a
) R
CD
In
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
16/0
2/07
IC
D 2
962
3808
11-
0001
F
lir S
yste
ms
AB
Gua
ngzh
ou S
at
Infr
ared
T
echn
olog
y C
o.
Ldt.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
16/0
2/07
IC
D 3
242
5021
6-00
01
Dra
htw
erke
P
loch
inge
r G
mbH
AV
I A
lpen
länd
isch
e V
ered
elun
gs-
Indu
stri
e G
esel
lsch
aft
m.b
.H.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
16/0
2/07
IC
D 3
234
5021
6-00
02
Dra
htw
erke
P
loch
inge
r G
mbH
AV
I A
lpen
länd
isch
e V
ered
elun
gs-
Indu
stri
e G
esel
lsch
aft
m.b
.H.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
16/0
2/07
IC
D 3
226
5021
6-00
03
Dra
htw
erke
P
loch
inge
r G
mbH
AV
I A
lpen
länd
isch
e V
ered
elun
gs-
Indu
stri
e G
esel
lsch
aft
m.b
.H.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
16/0
2/07
IC
D 3
218
5021
6-00
04
Dra
htw
erke
P
loch
inge
r G
mbH
AV
I A
lpen
länd
isch
e V
ered
elun
gs-
Indu
stri
e G
esel
lsch
aft
m.b
.H.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
30/0
1/07
IC
D 3
069
3778
25-
0001
Cal
vin
Kle
in
Tra
dem
ark
Tru
st
MU
ST
AP
HÁ
EL
JIR
AR
I B
OU
ZE
KR
I
Art
. 25(
1)(e
) R
CD
in
valid
30/0
1/07
IC
D 3
051
3621
57-
0001
Cal
vin
Kle
in
Tra
dem
ark
Tru
st
MU
ST
AP
HÁ
EL
JIR
AR
I B
OU
ZE
KR
I
Art
. 25(
1)(e
) R
CD
in
valid
30/0
1/07
IC
D 3
044
4262
18-
0003
LOU
IS
VU
ITT
ON
M
ALL
ET
IER
/
Cal
vin
Kle
in
Tra
dem
ark
Tru
st
MU
ST
AP
HÁ
EL
JIR
AR
I B
OU
ZE
KR
I
Art
. 25(
1)(e
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
30/0
1/07
IC
D 3
036
4262
18-
0002
Cal
vin
Kle
in
Tra
dem
ark
Tru
st
MU
ST
AP
HÁ
EL
JIR
AR
I B
OU
ZE
KR
I
Art
. 25(
1)(e
) R
CD
in
valid
26/0
1/07
IC
D 3
135
1488
87-
0004
LOU
IS
VU
ITT
ON
M
ALL
ET
IER
/
Cal
vin
Kle
in
Tra
dem
ark
Tru
st
MU
ST
AP
HÁ
EL
JIR
AR
I B
OU
ZE
KR
I
Art
. 25(
1)(e
) R
CD
in
valid
26/0
1/07
IC
D 3
127
1488
87-
0003
LOU
IS
VU
ITT
ON
M
ALL
ET
IER
/
Cal
vin
Kle
in
Tra
dem
ark
Tru
st
MU
ST
AP
HÁ
EL
JIR
AR
I B
OU
ZE
KR
I
Art
. 25(
1)(e
) R
CD
in
valid
26/0
1/07
IC
D 3
119
1488
87-
0002
LOU
IS
VU
ITT
ON
M
ALL
ET
IER
/
Cal
vin
Kle
in
Tra
dem
ark
Tru
st
MU
ST
AP
HÁ
EL
JIR
AR
I B
OU
ZE
KR
I
Art
. 25(
1)(e
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
26/0
1/07
IC
D 3
101
1488
87-
0001
LOU
IS
VU
ITT
ON
M
ALL
ET
IER
/
Cal
vin
Kle
in
Tra
dem
ark
Tru
st
MU
ST
AP
HÁ
EL
JIR
AR
I B
OU
ZE
KR
I
Art
. 25(
1)(e
) R
CD
in
valid
26/0
1/07
IC
D 3
093
3597
24-
0003
LOU
IS
VU
ITT
ON
M
ALL
ET
IER
/
Cal
vin
Kle
in
Tra
dem
ark
Tru
st
MU
ST
AP
HÁ
EL
JIR
AR
I B
OU
ZE
KR
I
Art
. 25(
1)(e
) R
CD
in
valid
26/0
1/07
IC
D 3
085
3597
24-
0002
LOU
IS
VU
ITT
ON
M
ALL
ET
IER
/
Cal
vin
Kle
in
Tra
dem
ark
Tru
st
MU
ST
AP
HÁ
EL
JIR
AR
I B
OU
ZE
KR
I
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
26/0
1/07
IC
D 3
077
3597
24-
0001
LOU
IS
VU
ITT
ON
M
ALL
ET
IER
/
Cal
vin
Kle
in
Tra
dem
ark
Tru
st
MU
ST
AP
HÁ
EL
JIR
AR
I B
OU
ZE
KR
I
Art
. 25(
1)(e
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
24/0
1/07
IC
D 3
028
4262
18-
0001
Cal
vin
Kle
in
Tra
dem
ark
Tru
st.
MU
ST
AP
HÁ
EL
JIR
AR
I B
OU
ZE
KR
I
Art
. 25(
1)(e
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
18/0
1/07
IC
D 1
451
1321
39-
0017
5th
Ave
nue
Des
ign
s D
ivis
ion
of
Cov
ingt
on
ALH
AM
BR
A
INT
ER
NA
CIO
NA
L, S
.A.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
18/0
1/07
IC
D 1
444
1321
39-
0016
5th
Ave
nue
Des
ign
s D
ivis
ion
of
Cov
ingt
on
ALH
AM
BR
A
INT
ER
NA
CIO
NA
L, S
.A.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
18/0
1/07
IC
D 1
436
1321
39-
0014
5th
Ave
nue
Des
ign
s D
ivis
ion
of
Cov
ingt
on
ALH
AM
BR
A
INT
ER
NA
CIO
NA
L, S
.A.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
18/0
1/07
IC
D 1
428
1321
39-
0012
5th
Ave
nue
Des
ign
s D
ivis
ion
of
Cov
ingt
on
ALH
AM
BR
A
INT
ER
NA
CIO
NA
L, S
.A.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
20/1
2/06
IC
D 2
954
3393
12-
0003
Com
pani
e G
erva
is
Dan
one
Zyg
mun
t P
iotr
owsk
i
Art
. 25(
1)(e
) R
CD
in
valid
20/1
2/06
IC
D 2
947
3393
12-
0002
Com
pani
e G
erva
is
Dan
one
Zyg
mun
t P
iotr
owsk
i
Art
. 25(
1)(e
) R
CD
in
valid
20/1
2/06
IC
D 2
939
3393
12-
0001
Com
pani
e G
erva
is
Dan
one
Zyg
mun
t P
iotr
owsk
i
Art
. 25(
1)(e
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
20/1
2/06
IC
D 2
244
1898
57-
0002
Inve
stm
ent
Con
sulti
ng
Ser
vice
Co
Ltd
Mat
thia
s M
ülle
r
Art
. 25(
1)(e
) R
CD
in
valid
12/1
2/06
IC
D 2
863
2548
75-
0001
T
adeu
sz
Kro
piel
nick
i
And
rzej
Z
ales
zczu
k
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
12/1
2/06
IC
D 2
475
3230
84-
0013
R
efle
x S
.p.A
.
FIA
M IT
ALI
A S
. p.
A.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
01/1
2/06
IC
D 1
766
3261
11-
0001
G
iulia
na
Sav
oldi
Cas
ella
to
Luci
ano
A
rt. 2
5(1)
(b)
RC
D
inva
lid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
01/1
2/06
IC
D 1
774
3261
11-
0002
G
iulia
na
Sav
oldi
Cas
ella
to
Luci
ano
A
rt. 2
5(1)
(b)
RC
D
inva
lid
01/1
2/06
IC
D 2
467
2532
73-
0001
B
urbe
rry
Ltd.
Jim
my
Mey
kran
z
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
01/1
2/06
IC
D 2
608
3000
17-
0037
T
EV
EA
B.V
N
O IM
AG
E
MA
SS
IVE
, NV
Inad
mis
sibl
e In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
01/1
2/06
IC
D 2
616
3000
17-
0038
T
EV
EA
B.V
N
O IM
AG
E
MA
SS
IVE
, NV
Inad
mis
sibl
e In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
01/1
2/06
IC
D 2
624
3000
17-
0053
T
EV
EA
B.V
N
O IM
AG
E
MA
SS
IVE
, NV
Inad
mis
sibl
e In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
30/1
1/06
IC
D 1
212
2993
18-
0001
Con
cept
-s
Lade
nbau
&
Obj
ectd
esig
n
Mla
den
Pin
tur
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
30/1
1/06
IC
D 1
220
2993
18-
0002
Con
cept
-s
Lade
nbau
&
Obj
ectd
esig
n
Mla
den
Pin
tur
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
24/1
1/06
IC
D 2
780
6440
7-00
01
SIP
EM
S.R
.L.
Mag
ic D
ream
s S
.r.l.
Art
. 25
(1)(
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
24/1
1/06
IC
D 2
798
64
407-
0002
S
IPE
M S
.R.L
.
Mag
ic D
ream
s S
.r.l.
Art
. 25
(1)(
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
24/1
1/06
IC
D 2
806
6440
7-00
03
SIP
EM
S.R
.L.
Mag
ic D
ream
s S
.r.l.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
24/1
1/06
IC
D 2
814
6440
7-00
04
SIP
EM
S.R
.L
Mag
ic D
ream
s S
.r.l.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
24/1
1/06
IC
D 2
822
6440
7-00
05
SIP
EM
S.R
.L.
Mag
ic D
ream
s S
.r.l.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
24/1
1/06
IC
D 2
830
6440
7-00
06
SIP
EM
S.R
.L.
Mag
ic D
ream
s S
.r.l.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
24/1
1/06
IC
D 1
089
2188
47-
0001
M
icha
el
San
dköt
ter
Chr
isto
ph
San
dköt
ter
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
24/1
1/06
IC
D 1
154
2158
76-
0001
M
icha
el
San
dköt
ter
Chr
isto
ph
San
dköt
ter
Art
. 25
(1)(
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
23/1
1/06
IC
D 2
418
4288
42-
0010
M
ecal
de 2
, S
.A.
PLA
ST
IMO
DU
L,
S.L
.
Art
. 25
(1)(
b)
RC
D
inva
lid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
22/1
1/06
IC
D 1
097
2188
47-
0002
M
icha
el
San
dköt
ter
Chr
isto
ph
San
dköt
ter
Art
. 25
(1)(
b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
22/1
1/06
IC
D 1
105
2188
47-
0003
M
icha
el
San
dköt
ter
Chr
isto
ph
San
dköt
ter
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
21/1
1/06
IC
D 1
113
2188
47-
0004
M
icha
el
San
dköt
ter
Chr
isto
ph
San
dköt
ter
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
21/1
1/06
IC
D 2
392
4288
42-
0008
M
ecal
de 2
, S
.A.
PLA
ST
IMO
DU
L,
S.L
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
21/1
1/06
IC
D 1
139
2188
47-
0006
M
icha
el
San
dköt
ter
Chr
isto
ph
San
dköt
ter
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
15/1
1/06
IC
D 2
400
4288
42-
0009
M
ecal
de 2
, S
.A.
PLA
ST
IMO
DU
L S
.L.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
14/1
1/06
IC
D 2
061
1698
18-
0001
D
B D
esig
n G
mbH
AN
ICE
TO
C
AN
AM
AS
AS
P
UIG
BO
Art
. 25(
1)(d
) R
CD
in
valid
13/1
1/06
IC
D 0
842
3759
3-00
01
Dan
sk
Sup
erm
arke
d A
/S
Fer
rari
S.P
.A.
Art
. 25(
1)(d
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
13/1
1/06
IC
D 2
368
4288
42-
0005
M
ecal
de 2
, S
.A.
PLA
ST
IMO
DU
L,
S.L
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
13/1
1/06
IC
D 2
376
4288
42-
0006
M
ecal
de 2
, S
.A.
PLA
ST
IMO
DU
L,
S.L
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
13/1
1/06
IC
D 2
384
4288
42-
0007
M
ecal
de 2
, S
.A.
PLA
ST
IMO
DU
L,
S.L
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
10/1
1/06
IC
D 1
121
2188
47-
0005
M
icha
el
San
dköt
ter
Chr
isto
ph
San
dköt
ter
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
10/1
1/06
IC
D 2
310
3212
94-
0001
M
yrur
gia
S.A
.
MIG
UE
L A
NG
EL
MIR
A N
AV
AR
RO
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
10/1
1/06
IC
D 2
327
4288
42-
0001
M
ecal
de 2
, S
.A.
PLA
ST
IMO
DU
L,
S.L
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
10/1
1/06
IC
D 2
335
4288
42-
0002
M
ecal
de 2
, S
.A.
PLA
ST
IMO
DU
L,
S.L
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
10/1
1/06
IC
D 2
343
4288
42-
0003
M
ecal
de 2
, S.A
PLA
ST
IMO
DU
L,
S.L
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
10/1
1/06
IC
D 2
350
4288
42-
0004
M
ecal
de 2
, S.A
PLA
ST
IMO
DU
L,
S.L
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
10/1
1/06
IC
D 1
386
2896
32-
0002
Le
ng-D
'or,
S.A
.
MA
FIN
S.p
.A.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
06/1
1/06
IC
D 2
855
5186
26-
0001
ISS
M
anuf
actu
ring
Li
mite
d N
o im
age
Chr
istia
n M
. A
nder
sen
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
23/1
0/06
IC
D 1
394
2896
32-
0003
Le
ng-D
'or,
S.A
.
MA
FIN
S.p
.A.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
23/1
0/06
IC
D 1
402
2896
32-
0004
Le
ng-D
'or,
S.A
. N
o im
age
MA
FIN
S.p
.A.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
10/1
0/06
IC
D 2
483
2106
79-
0002
I-
Fen
g K
ao
No
imag
e B
uilt
NY
, Inc
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
04/1
0/06
IC
D 2
228
3208
09-
0001
A
rbon
ia A
G
Atla
ntic
Soc
iété
F
ranç
aise
de
Dev
elop
pmen
t T
herm
ique
Art
. 25
(1)(
f)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
29/0
9/06
IC
D 2
871
4336
44-
0001
HA
NS
A
Met
allw
erke
A
G
Car
lo K
linge
r
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
29/0
9/06
IC
D 2
889
4336
44-
0002
HA
NS
A
Met
allw
erke
A
G
Car
lo K
linge
r
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
29/0
9/06
IC
D 2
897
4336
44-
0003
HA
NS
A
Met
allw
erke
A
G
Car
lo K
linge
r
Art
. 25(
1)(b
),
RC
D
inva
lid
22/0
9/06
IC
D 2
574
3468
61-
0003
C
ampe
r, S
.L.
Cal
mod
a, S
.L.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
22/0
9/06
IC
D 2
665
3468
61-
0015
C
ampe
r, S
.L.
Cal
mod
a, S
.L.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
20/0
9/06
IC
D 2
657
3468
61-
0013
C
ampe
r, S
.L.
Cal
mod
a, S
.L.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
19/0
9/06
IC
D 1
972
3787
57-
0008
Li
nea
Hog
ar
Dec
o, S
.L.
Ven
ilia,
S.A
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
19/0
9/06
IC
D 1
980
3787
57-
0010
Li
nea
Hog
ar
Dec
o, S
.L.
V
enili
a, S
.A.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
19/0
9/06
IC
D 2
087
4047
28-
0001
Equ
ipam
ient
os
Y M
ater
iale
s D
epor
tivos
SL
Ben
ito J
ulia
n Je
rez
Mel
ende
z M
igue
l Ang
el
Gut
iez
Agu
erri
Art
. 25
(1)(
b)(d
)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
18/0
9/06
IC
D 2
194
3446
01-
0001
Z
heng
uang
Y
an
Eur
opea
De
Cer
amic
as,
S.L
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
15/0
9/06
IC
D 1
469
2149
03-
0001
B
osch
Sec
urity
S
yste
ms
B.V
.
Tai
den
Indu
stri
al
(Seh
nzen
) C
o.,
Ltd.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
14/0
9/06
IC
D 1
931
3136
55-
0003
M
ecal
de 2
, S
.A.
Her
raje
s y
Sis
tem
as
Bel
kris
s, S
.L.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
13/0
9/06
IC
D 1
642
3787
57-
0001
Li
nea
Hog
ar
Dec
o, S
.L.
Ven
ilia,
S.A
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
13/0
9/06
IC
D 1
659
3787
57-
0002
Li
nea
Hog
ar
Dec
o, S
.L.
Ven
ilia,
S.A
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
13/0
9/06
IC
D 1
667
3787
57-
0003
Li
nea
Hog
ar
Dec
o, S
.L.
Ven
ilia,
S.A
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
13/0
9/06
IC
D 1
675
3787
57-
0004
Li
nea
Hog
ar
Dec
o, S
.L.
Ven
ilia,
S.A
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
13/0
9/06
IC
D 1
683
3757
-00
05
Line
a H
ogar
D
eco,
S.L
.
Ven
ilia,
S.A
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
13/0
9/06
IC
D 1
691
3787
57-
0006
Li
nea
Hog
ar
Dec
o, S
.L.
Ven
ilia,
S.A
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
13/0
9/06
IC
D 1
709
3787
57-
0007
Li
nea
Hog
ar
Dec
o, S
.L.
Ven
ilia,
S.A
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
13/0
9/06
IC
D 1
717
3787
57-
0009
Li
nea
Hog
ar
Dec
o, S
.L.
Ven
ilia,
S.A
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
13/0
9/06
IC
D 1
725
3787
57-
0011
Li
nea
Hog
ar
Dec
o, S
.L.
Ven
ilia,
S.A
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
13/0
9/06
IC
D 1
733
3787
57-
0012
Li
nea
Hog
ar
Dec
o, S
.L.
Ven
ilia,
S.A
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
13/0
9/06
IC
D 1
816
3787
57-
0013
Li
nea
Hog
ar
Dec
o, S
.L.
Ven
ilia,
S.A
. A
rt. 2
5(1)
(b)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
13/0
9/06
IC
D 2
202
1230
13-
0001
Han
dl
Coo
kwar
e Li
mite
d
Impe
rial
In
tern
atio
nal
Lim
ited
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
12/0
9/06
IC
D 1
956
3307
82-
0001
H
K R
uoka
talo
G
roup
Oyi
Atr
ia Y
htym
a O
yj
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
12/0
9/06
IC
D 1
964
3307
82-
0002
H
K R
uoka
talo
G
roup
Oyi
Atr
ia Y
htym
a O
yj
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
08/0
9/06
IC
D 2
285
3870
89-
0002
Anc
ieto
C
anam
asas
P
uigb
o
HE
NK
EL
KO
MM
AN
DIT
GE
SE
LLS
CH
AF
T
AU
F A
KT
IEN
C
/O H
EN
KE
L K
GaA
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
31/0
8/06
IC
D 2
186
1711
78-
0005
H
onda
Mot
or
Co.
Ltd
.
Wux
i Kip
or
Pow
er C
o.,
Ltd
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
31/0
8/06
IC
D 2
640
2736
93-
0001
S
ocie
te B
IC
Bai
de
Inte
rnat
iona
l E
urop
e s.
r.o.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
30/0
8/06
IC
D 1
006
1632
90-
0002
Hon
da G
iken
K
ogyo
K
abus
hiki
K
aish
a
Kw
ang
Yan
g M
otor
Co.
, Lt
d.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
29/0
8/06
IC
D 1
410
1961
67-
0003
M
ars
UK
Li
mite
d
Par
agon
P
rodu
cts
BV
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
24/0
8/06
IC
D 2
426
3523
15-
0007
Sch
wan
-S
TA
BIL
O
Sch
wan
häu
ßer
G
mbH
Nin
gbo
Bei
fa
Gro
up C
o., L
td
Art
. 25(
1)(e
) R
CD
in
valid
23/0
8/06
IC
D 1
329
2882
20-
0001
M
artin
S
aule
spur
ens
SIA
Scr
uple
s
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
23/0
8/06
IC
D 1
337
2882
20-
0002
M
artin
S
aule
spur
ens
SIA
Scr
uple
s
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
23/0
8/06
IC
D 1
345
2882
20-
0003
M
artin
S
aule
spur
ens
SIA
Scr
uple
s
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
23/0
8/06
IC
D 1
352
2882
20-
0004
M
artin
S
aule
spur
ens
SIA
Scr
uple
s
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
23/0
8/06
IC
D 1
360
2882
20-
0005
M
artin
S
aule
spur
ens
SIA
Scr
uple
s
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
23/0
8/06
IC
D 1
378
2882
20-
0006
M
artin
S
aule
spur
ens
SIA
Scr
uple
s
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
17/0
8/06
IC
D 2
301
3870
89-
0004
Anc
ieto
C
anam
asas
P
uigb
o
HE
NK
EL
KO
MM
AN
DIT
GE
SE
LLS
CH
AF
T
AU
F A
KT
IEN
C
/O H
EN
KE
L K
GaA
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
17/0
8/06
IC
D 0
990
1632
90-
0001
Hon
da G
iken
K
ogyo
K
abus
hiki
K
aish
a.
Kw
ang
Yan
g M
otor
Co.
, Lt
d.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
01/0
8/06
IC
D 2
293
3870
89-
0003
Anc
ieto
C
anam
asas
P
uigb
o
HE
NK
EL
KO
MM
AN
DIT
GE
SE
LLS
CH
AF
T
AU
F A
KT
IEN
C
/O H
EN
KE
L K
GaA
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
15/0
5/06
IC
D 1
741
2887
33-
0001
B
ümag
EG
The
Pro
cter
&
Gam
ble
Com
pany
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
15/0
5/06
IC
D 1
758
2887
33-
0002
B
ümag
EG
The
Pro
cter
&
Gam
ble
Com
pany
A
rt. 2
5(1)
(b)
RC
D
inva
lid
08/0
5/06
IC
D 2
038
2641
30-
0001
B
uilt
NY
Inc
I-F
eng
Kao
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
08/0
5/06
IC
D 2
046
2641
30-
0002
B
uilt
NY
Inc
I-
Fen
g K
ao
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
08/0
5/06
IC
D 2
053
3875
84-
0003
B
uilt
NY
Inc
I-F
eng
Kao
Art
. 25(
1)(d
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
03/0
5/06
IC
D 2
095
3875
84-
0001
B
uilt
NY
Inc
I-F
eng
Kao
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
03/0
5/06
IC
D 2
103
3875
84-
0002
B
uilt
NY
Inc
I-F
eng
Kao
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
26/0
4/06
IC
D 1
824
3304
02-
0001
P
itacs
Lim
ited
Kam
il K
orha
n K
arag
ülle
Art
. 25(
1)(d
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
26/0
4/06
IC
D 1
832
3304
02-
0002
P
itacs
Lim
ited
Kam
il K
orha
n K
arag
ülle
Art
. 25(
1)(d
) R
CD
in
valid
26/0
4/06
IC
D 1
840
3304
02-
0003
P
itacs
Lim
ited
Kam
il K
orha
n K
arag
ülle
Art
. 25(
1)(d
) R
CD
in
valid
26/0
4/06
IC
D 1
857
3304
02-
0008
P
itacs
Lim
ited
Kam
il K
orha
n K
arag
ülle
Art
. 25(
1)(d
) R
CD
in
valid
26/0
4/06
IC
D 1
865
3304
02-
0009
P
itacs
Lim
ited
Kam
il K
orha
n K
arag
ülle
Art
. 25(
1)(d
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
26/0
4/06
IC
D 1
873
3304
02-
0012
P
itacs
Lim
ited
Kam
il K
orha
n K
arag
ülle
Art
. 25(
1)(d
) R
CD
in
valid
26/0
4/06
IC
D 1
881
3304
02-
0013
P
itacs
Lim
ited
Kam
il K
orha
n K
arag
ülle
Art
. 25(
1)(d
) R
CD
in
valid
26/0
4/06
IC
D 1
899
3304
02-
0014
P
itacs
Lim
ited
Kam
il K
orha
n K
arag
ülle
Art
. 25(
1)(d
) R
CD
in
valid
26/0
4/06
IC
D 1
824
3304
02-
0015
P
itacs
Lim
ited
Kam
il K
orha
n K
arag
ülle
Art
. 25(
1)(d
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
26/0
4/06
IC
D 1
832
3304
02-
0002
P
itacs
Lim
ited
Kam
il K
orha
n K
arag
ülle
Art
. 25(
1)(d
) R
CD
in
valid
26/0
4/06
IC
D 1
923
3304
02-
0017
P
itacs
Lim
ited
Kam
il K
orha
n K
arag
ülle
Art
. 25(
1)(d
) R
CD
in
valid
29/0
3/06
IC
D 1
782
3702
00-
0001
M
onik
a B
arbe
r
J&J
Dec
or
Spo
lka
z o.
o.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
23/0
3/06
IC
D 1
303
3122
02-
0001
A
BH
oldi
ng C
. V
lem
mix
B.V
. N
o Im
age
E. v
an
Hel
lenb
urg
H
ubar
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
17/0
3/06
IC
D 0
941
0001
998
72-0
001
Dry
son
AB
Bir
ger
Ols
son
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
17/0
3/06
IC
D 0
958
1998
72-
0002
D
ryso
n A
B
Bir
ger
Ols
son
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
17/0
3/06
IC
D 0
966
1998
72-
0003
D
ryso
n A
B
Bir
ger
Ols
son
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
17/0
3/06
IC
D 0
974
1998
72-
0004
D
ryso
n A
B
Bir
ger
Ols
son
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
17/0
3/06
IC
D 0
982
1998
72-
0005
D
ryso
n A
B
Bir
ger
Ols
son
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
02/0
3/06
IC
D 1
576
1744
7-00
01
MA
XIM
M
arke
npro
dukt
e G
mbH
& C
o K
G
Bha
rat
B. G
era
259
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
01/0
3/06
IC
D 1
477
1624
25-
0001
H
ee J
ung
Kim
Zel
lweg
er
Ana
lytic
s Li
mite
d
Art
. 25(
1)(e
) R
CD
in
valid
01/0
3/06
IC
D 1
485
1624
25-
0002
H
ee J
ung
Kim
Zel
lweg
er
Ana
lytic
s Li
mite
d
Art
. 25(
1)(e
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
01/0
3/06
IC
D 1
493
1624
25-
0003
H
ee J
ung
Kim
Zel
lweg
er
Ana
lytic
s Li
mite
d
Art
. 25(
1)(e
) R
CD
in
valid
01/0
3/06
IC
D 1
501
1624
25-
0004
H
ee J
ung
Kim
Zel
lweg
er
Ana
lytic
s Li
mite
d
Art
. 25(
1)(e
) R
CD
in
valid
20/0
2/06
IC
D 1
535
2129
07-
0005
R
etch
P
orze
llan
Ken
nex
(Hon
g K
ong)
Ltd
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
20/0
2/06
IC
D 1
543
2129
07-
0007
R
etch
P
orze
llan
Ken
nex
(Hon
g K
ong)
Ltd
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
20/0
2/06
IC
D 1
550
2129
07-
0008
R
etch
P
orze
llan
Ken
nex
(Hon
g K
ong)
Ltd
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
10/0
2/06
IC
D 0
602
1071
15-
0003
R
odi C
omer
cial
S
.A.
Vue
lta
Inte
rnat
iona
l S
.P.A
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
08/0
2/06
IC
D 1
568
2864
30-
0001
B
urbe
rry
Ltd
Cre
acio
nes
Cam
al, S
.L
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) (e
) R
CD
in
valid
07/0
2/06
IC
D 1
519
2129
07-
0002
R
etch
P
orze
llan
Ken
nex
(Hon
g K
ong)
Ltd
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
07/0
2/06
IC
D 1
527
2129
07-
0004
R
etch
P
orze
llan
Ken
nex
(Hon
g K
ong)
Ltd
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
06/0
2/06
IC
D 0
743
1199
61-
0001
Hei
delb
erge
r D
ruck
mas
chin
en
AG
Mic
roso
ft
Cor
pora
tion
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
06/0
2/06
IC
D 0
750
1199
61-
0002
Hei
delb
erge
r D
ruck
mas
chin
en
AG
Mic
roso
ft
Cor
pora
tion
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
06/0
2/06
IC
D 0
768
1199
61-
0003
Hei
delb
erge
r D
ruck
mas
chin
en
AG
Mic
roso
ft
Cor
pora
tion
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
06/0
2/06
IC
D 0
776
1199
61-
0004
Hei
delb
erge
r D
ruck
mas
chin
en
AG
Mic
roso
ft
Cor
pora
tion
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
06/0
2/06
IC
D 0
784
1199
61-
0005
Hei
delb
erge
r D
ruck
mas
chin
en
AG
Mic
roso
ft
Cor
pora
tion
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
06/0
2/06
IC
D 0
792
1199
61-
0006
Hei
delb
erge
r D
ruck
mas
chin
en
AG
Mic
roso
ft
Cor
pora
tion
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
06/0
2/06
IC
D 0
800
1199
61-
0007
Hei
delb
erge
r D
ruck
mas
chin
en
AG
Mic
roso
ft
Cor
pora
tion
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
06/0
2/06
IC
D 0
818
1199
61-
0008
Hei
delb
erge
r D
ruck
mas
chin
en
AG
Mic
roso
ft
Cor
pora
tion
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
26/0
1/06
IC
D
0159
2 22
8333
-00
10
Nar
umi C
hina
C
orpo
ratio
n
Ken
nex
(Hon
g K
ong)
Ltd
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
26/0
1/06
IC
D 1
600
2283
33-
0011
N
arum
i Chi
na
Cor
pora
tion
Ken
nex
(Hon
g K
ong)
Ltd
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
26/0
1/06
IC
D 1
618
2283
33-
0012
N
arum
i Chi
na
Cor
pora
tion
Ken
nex
(Hon
g K
ong)
Ltd
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
20/0
1/06
IC
D 1
014
2782
6-00
01
Aud
i AG
Rod
er Z
elt-
und
V
eran
stal
tung
sse
rvic
e G
mbH
Art
. 25
(1)(
b)(f
)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
19/0
1/06
IC
D 0
560
4942
4-00
01
Kir
sche
nhof
er
Ges
ells
chaf
t m
.b.H
. N
O IM
AG
E
WS
Tel
esho
p In
tern
atio
nal
Han
dels
-Gm
bH
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
16/0
1/06
IC
D 0
891
2534
97-
0004
K
enne
x (H
ong
Kon
g) L
TD
Ret
sch
Por
zella
n G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
16/0
1/06
IC
D 0
909
2534
97-
0005
K
enne
x (H
ong
Kon
g) L
TD
Ret
sch
Por
zella
n G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
16/0
1/06
IC
D 0
917
2534
97-
0006
K
enne
x (H
ong
Kon
g) L
TD
Ret
sch
Por
zella
n G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
16/0
1/06
IC
D 0
925
2534
97-
0007
K
enne
x (H
ong
Kon
g) L
TD
Ret
sch
Por
zella
n G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
16/0
1/06
IC
D 0
933
2534
97-
0008
K
enne
x (H
ong
Kon
g) L
TD
Ret
sch
Por
zella
n G
mbH
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
13/0
1/06
IC
D 0
875
2083
35-
0001
Ib
erla
mp
Ligh
t S
.L.
Lore
far
, s.
l.u.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
20/1
2/05
IC
D 0
461
9335
6-00
01
Akt
iebo
lage
t D
esig
n R
uben
s S
wed
en
Mar
ie E
kman
B
ackl
und,
Brit
t-M
arie
Jak
obss
on
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
20/1
2/05
IC
D 0
479
9335
6-00
02
Akt
iebo
lage
t D
esig
n R
uben
s S
wed
en
Mar
ie E
kman
B
ackl
und,
Brit
t-M
arie
Jak
obss
on
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
20/1
2/05
IC
D 0
487
9335
6-00
03
Akt
iebo
lage
t D
esig
n R
uben
s S
wed
en
Mar
ie E
kman
B
ackl
und,
Brit
t-M
arie
Jak
obss
on
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
20/1
2/05
IC
D 0
495
9335
6-00
04
Akt
iebo
lage
t D
esig
n R
uben
s S
wed
en
Mar
ie E
kman
B
ackl
und,
Brit
t-M
arie
Jak
obss
on
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
20/1
2/05
IC
D 0
503
9335
6-00
07
Akt
iebo
lage
t D
esig
n R
uben
s S
wed
en
Mar
ie E
kman
B
ackl
und,
Brit
t-M
arie
Jak
obss
on
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
20/1
2/05
IC
D 0
511
9335
6-00
10
Akt
iebo
lage
t D
esig
n R
uben
s S
wed
en
Mar
ie E
kman
B
ackl
und,
Brit
t-M
arie
Jak
obss
on
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
20/1
2/05
IC
D 0
594
1071
15-
0002
R
odi C
omer
cial
S
.A.
Vue
lta
Inte
rnat
iona
l S
.P.A
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
20/1
2/05
IC
D 1
063
2941
52-
0002
In
deca
sa,
S.A
.
Juan
Ant
onio
R
amir
ez F
ranc
o
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
13/1
2/05
IC
D 1
055
2941
45-
0001
In
deca
sa,
S.A
. Ju
an A
nton
io
Ram
irez
Fra
nco
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
13/1
2/05
IC
D 1
071
2981
79-
0001
In
deca
sa,
S.A
. Ju
an A
nton
io
Ram
irez
Fra
nco
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
01/1
2/05
IC
D 8
67
2250
73-
0001
Am
pel 2
4 V
ertr
iebs
-G
mbH
& C
o K
G
Dak
a R
esea
rch
Inc.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
27/1
0/05
IC
D 3
62
6371
4-00
03
C.
Jose
f La
my
Gm
bH
San
ford
, L.
P.
Art
. 25
(1)(
b)(e
)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
20/0
9/05
IC
D 3
96
3984
7-00
01
Ser
vici
os d
e D
istr
ibut
ion
e In
vest
igac
ion
SL
PA
RM
AN
DA
ND
(H
.K.)
LT
D.
Art
. 25(
1)(d
) R
CD
in
valid
20/0
9/05
IC
D 0
388
1502
06-
0002
Le
ng-D
'or,
S.A
.
CR
OW
N
CO
NF
EC
TIO
NE
RY
CO
., LT
D.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
19/0
9/05
IC
D 0
735
9803
3-00
01
Leng
-D'o
r, S
.A.
NO
IMA
GE
F
RIT
O-L
AY
T
RA
DIN
G
CO
MP
AN
Y
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
15/0
9/05
IC
D 0
552
1295
15-
0004
WS
Tel
esho
p In
tern
atio
nal
Han
dels
Gm
bH
Hom
elan
d H
ouse
war
es,
LL
C.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
15/0
9/05
IC
D 0
545
1295
15-
0003
WS
Tel
esho
p In
tern
atio
nal
Han
dels
Gm
bH
Hom
elan
d H
ouse
war
es,
LL
C.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
15/0
9/05
IC
D 0
537
1295
15-
0002
WS
Tel
esho
p In
tern
atio
nal
Han
dels
Gm
bH
Hom
elan
d H
ouse
war
es,
LL
C.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
15/0
9/05
IC
D 0
529
1295
15-
0001
WS
Tel
esho
p In
tern
atio
nal
Han
dels
Gm
bH
Hom
elan
d H
ouse
war
es,
LL
C.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
05/0
9/05
IC
D 0
339
5833
4-00
01
Gal
leta
s U
nite
d B
iscu
its, S
.A.
Arl
uy,
S.L
.
Art
. 25
(1)(
b)(e
)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
(app
eal
dism
isse
d)
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
30/0
8/05
IC
D 0
297
3718
9-00
12
Rod
i Com
erci
al
S.A
.
ISC
A S
.p.A
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
30/0
8/05
IC
D 0
289
3718
9-00
11
Rod
i Com
erci
al
S.A
.
ISC
A S
.p.A
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
30/0
8/05
IC
D 0
271
3718
9-00
10
Rod
i Com
erci
al
S.A
.
ISC
A S
.p.A
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
29/0
7/05
IC
D 0
347
5833
4-00
02
Gal
leta
s U
nite
d B
iscu
its, S
.A.
Arl
uy,
S.L
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
29/0
7/05
IC
D 0
354
6094
2-00
01
Gal
leta
s U
nite
d B
iscu
its, S
.A.
Arl
uy,
S.L
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) (e
)
Inva
lidity
ap
plic
atio
n re
ject
ed
08/0
7/05
IC
D 0
453
1242
43-
0013
Ani
ceto
C
anam
asas
P
uigi
bo
Bar
alan
In
tern
atio
nal
s.p.
a.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
01/0
7/05
IC
D 0
180
7446
3-00
03
Gru
po P
rom
er
Mon
-Gra
phic
PE
PS
ICO
INC
. A
rt. 2
5(1)
(b)
RC
D
inva
lid
(ove
rtur
ned
on a
ppea
l)
01/0
7/05
IC
D 0
198
7446
3-00
02
Gru
po P
rom
er
Mon
-Gra
phic
PE
PS
ICO
INC
. A
rt. 2
5(1)
(b)
RC
D
inva
lid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
30/0
6/05
IC
D 0
446
8531
1-00
03
Sun
star
Sui
sse
S.A
.
Den
taid
, S
.L.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
30/0
6/05
IC
D 0
438
8531
1-00
02
Sun
star
Sui
sse
S.A
.
Den
taid
, S
.L.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
20/0
6/05
IC
D 0
420
8531
1-00
01
Sun
star
Sui
sse
S.A
.
Den
taid
, S
.L.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
20/0
6/05
IC
D 0
172
7446
3-00
01
Gru
po P
rom
er
Mon
-Gra
phic
PE
PS
ICO
INC
. A
rt. 2
5(1)
(d)
RC
D
inva
lid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
14/0
6/05
IC
D 0
263
1073
96-
0001
Z
will
inge
J.A
. H
enck
els
AG
N
O IM
AG
E
J.C
.H.
Inte
rnat
iona
l Sar
l
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
23/0
5/05
IC
D 0
255
1912
-00
03
Bri
gitte
Bre
yer-
Lind
ner
Top
Tea
ms
Mer
chan
disi
ng
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
23/0
5/05
IC
D 0
248
1912
-00
02
Bri
gitte
Bre
yer-
Lind
ner
Top
Tea
ms
Mer
chan
disi
ng
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
23/0
5/05
IC
D 0
230
1912
- 00
01
Bri
gitte
Bre
yer-
Lind
ner
Top
Tea
ms
Mer
chan
disi
ng
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
19/0
5/05
IC
D 0
586
5749
2-00
01
VIG
NA
L S
YS
TE
MS
MA
CR
OP
LAS
T-
PE
CA
S
TE
CH
NIC
AS
DE
P
LAS
TIC
O, L
DA
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
27/0
4/05
IC
D 0
123
1618
3-00
06
Die
ter
Ljub
ojev
ic
Dah
lman
n-Y
ave
Ltd.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
)
RC
D
inva
lid
(ove
rtur
ned
on a
ppea
l)
27/0
4/05
IC
D 1
15
1618
3-00
05
Die
ter
Ljub
ojev
ic
Dah
lman
n-Y
ave
Ltd.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
27/0
4/05
IC
D 0
107
1618
3-00
02
Die
ter
Ljub
ojev
ic
Dah
lman
n-Y
ave
Ltd.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
)
RC
D
inva
lid
(ove
rtur
ned
on a
ppea
l)
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
27/0
4/05
IC
D 0
016
1618
3-00
01
Die
ter
Ljub
ojev
ic
Dah
lman
n-Y
ave
Ltd.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
01/0
3/05
IC
D 0
099
2031
8-00
01
Gal
leta
s G
ullo
n S
.A.
SO
S C
ueta
ra,
S.A
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
23/0
2/05
IC
D 0
370
1502
06-
0001
Le
ng-D
'or,
S.A
.
CR
OW
N
CO
NF
EC
TIO
NE
RY
CO
., LT
D.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
22/0
2/05
IC
D 0
305
1129
33-
0002
Anc
ieto
C
anam
asas
P
uigb
o
INO
VO
DE
SIG
N
S.r
.l.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
15/1
2/04
IC
D 0
321
605-
0001
E
nric
Per
icas
B
osch
Bet
on P
oets
ch
Gm
bH &
Co.
KG
A
rt. 2
5(1)
(b)
RC
D
inva
lid
03/1
2/04
IC
D 0
065
5269
-00
01
CE
NT
RE
X,
S.A
.U.
Isog
ona,
S.L
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
22/1
0/04
IC
D 0
214
8143
5-00
01
LEN
G D
’Or,
S
.A.
Maf
in S
.P.A
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
22/1
0/04
IC
D 0
222
8143
5-00
02
LEN
G D
’Or,
S
.A.
Maf
in S
.P.A
.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
08/0
9/04
IC
D 0
149
2605
9-00
01
LEN
G D
’Or,
S
.A.
NO
IMA
GE
R
ecot
, In
c.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
20/0
7/04
IC
D 0
206
3660
-00
01
Ado
lfo D
zigc
iot
Gus
tavo
Adr
ian
Man
iera
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
02/0
7/04
IC
D 0
073
5552
0-00
01
Com
mer
cial
O
pera
S.A
.
Cat
a E
lect
rodo
mes
tico
s S
.L.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
02/0
7/04
IC
D 0
131
5552
0-00
02
Com
mer
cial
O
pera
S.A
.
Cat
a E
lect
rodo
mes
tico
s S
.L.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
02/0
7/04
IC
D 0
156
5552
0-00
03
Com
mer
cial
O
pera
S.A
. N
O IM
AG
E
Cat
a E
lect
rodo
mes
tico
s S
.L.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
02/0
7/04
IC
D 0
164
5552
0-00
04
Com
mer
cial
O
pera
S.A
. N
O IM
AG
E
Cat
a E
lect
rodo
mes
tico
s S
.L.
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) R
CD
in
valid
14/0
6/04
IC
D 4
0 22
454-
0001
Jo
sé M
alle
nt
Cas
tello
3M I
nnov
ativ
e P
rope
rtie
s C
ompa
ny
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
14/0
6/04
IC
D 5
7 22
454-
0002
Jo
sé M
alle
nt
Cas
tello
3M I
nnov
ativ
e P
rope
rtie
s C
ompa
ny
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
DM
_EU
:874
6013
_2
Her
e D
ate
of
Dec
isio
n D
ecis
ion
No.
R
CD
No.
Ap
plic
ant
Earli
er R
ight
R
CD
Ow
ner
RC
D
Gro
unds
R
esul
t
03/0
6/04
IC
D 3
2 18
148-
0001
M
igue
l Sor
iano
S
ola
RID
I Le
ucht
en
Gm
bH
Art
. 25(
1)(b
) In
valid
ity
appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
27/0
4/04
IC
D 2
4 35
95-
0001
E
RE
DU
S.
CO
OP
Arr
met
, S.R
.L.
Art
. 25(
1)(d
) R
CD
in
valid
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, Nestlé 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. Case No:
2. Date of decision:
3. RCD number:
4. Language Spanish/English/French/Italian/German
5. Invalidity Applicant: Name [Country]
6. RCD Holder: Name [Country]
7. Panellists:
8. Decision: RCD Invalid / Invalidity application rejected.
9. Nature of design (bottle, biscuit, car part etc)
10. Image of Design
11. Locarno code (if known)
12. Prior right (CTM, national design, magazine publication)
Please include image(s).
13. Did the panellists hold that the RCD is new? Yes/No If not, what evidence was filed?
14. Did the panellists hold that the RCD is of individual character?
Yes/No If not, what evidence was filed?
15. Comments
If relevant, please include here any helpful comments made about:
• Types of evidence and how it is presented
• Who is “the informed user”?
• “Individual character”
• “Overall impression”
• Any helpful tips for practitioners?
16. Evaluator’s Name
MARQUES, 840 Melton Road, Thurmaston, Leicester, LE4 8BNTel: +44 116 264 0080, Fax: +44 116 264 0141, E-mail: [email protected], URL: www.marques.org