Openbaar gemaakt voordat het latere ontwerp is ingediend

OHIM Kamer van Beroep 25 februari 2013, zaken R 1053/2012-3, R 678/2012-3 en R 679/2012-3 (WATT DRIVE ANTRIEBSTECHNIK GMBH tegen Nanotehnologija d.o.o.; behuizing)

Modellenrecht. Nieuwheid. Door Nanotehnologija d.o.o. is op 13 mei 2010 het volgende ontwerp DM/073 634-1, DM/073 634-2 en DM/073 634-3 ('behuizingen') ter registratie  ingediend. In april en juni 2011 heeft WATT DRIVE een aanvraag ingediend voor  nietigverklaring van het betreffende ontwerp op grond dat het ontwerp niet voldoet aan de eisen van de artikelen 4 tot 9 CDR en nieuwheid ontbreekt. WATT DRIVE voert aan dat het ontwerp is afgeleid van zijn eigen ontwerp, welke publiekelijk beschikbaar is gesteld in 2007. Het eerdere ontwerp moet worden beschouwd als 'openbaar gemaakt aan het publiek' voordat het latere ontwerp is ingediend ter registratie. De nietigheidsafdeling heeft - inplaats van de mogelijkheid te bieden uitleg te geven over eventuele verwarring betreffende '07' - te snel de aanvraag afgewezen. De beslissing wordt  vernietigd, de zaak wordt terugverwezen naar de nietigheidsafdeling.

R 1053/2012-3
In the Board’s opinion, the evidence does support this claim which, it must be observed, was not denied by the design holder. The earlier design must, therefore, be considered as having been made available to the public before the filing date of the later design. Accordingly the contested decision must be annulled and the case must be remitted to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution.

The Board hereby:
1. Annuls the contested decision;
2. Remits the case to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution;
3. Orders that the parties bear their own costs in the appeal proceedings.

R 678/2012-3 en R 679/2012-3
10 The appeal complies with Articles 55 to 57 CDR and Article 34(1)(c)
and (2) CDIR. It is, therefore, admissible.
11 The appeal, in addition, is well founded.
12 The invalidity applicant described the evidence of disclosure it wished to rely on, at page 4 of its invalidity application, as ‘the product and sales catalogue 2007’. Page 5 of the application reproduced a picture of the cover page of that catalogue
13 In the Board’s opinion, the indication ‘07’ that appears at the bottom of the cover, near ‘MAS’, may very well be understood as meaning ‘2007’. It is not unusual to abbreviate years, in periodical publications, by mentioning the last two digits. Moreover, since page 4 of the application mentioned a catalogue dated ‘2007’, it was reasonable to consider that the digits ‘07’ appearing on the next page of the application could refer to that year.
14 If, notwithstanding the above, there were still doubts that ‘07’ meant ‘2007’, the Invalidity Division could have requested the invalidity applicant to clarify this (see Article 53(2) CDR), instead of hastily rejecting the application.
15 It is appropriate to annul the decision and to remit the case to the Invalidity
Division for an examination of its merits.

The Board hereby:
1. Annuls the contested decision;
2. Remits the case to the Invalidity Division for further processing;
3. Orders that the parties bear their own costs in the appeal proceedings.