registered community designs

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


…

(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

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

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)


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)


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


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


…

(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


…

(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


…

(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


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


…

(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