The Apple/Samsung tablet wars continue unabated, with a recent invalidity decision relating to Apple RCD no. 000181607-0001 recently posted on OHIM’s website. As readers with an interest in “cool” designs may remember, Samsung sought (and obtained) a declaration of non-infringement for three of its Galaxy tablet computers in relation to this RCD in the UK last year (see Katposts here and here).
The validity of the RCD was not in question in the UK litigation last year; according to Article 84(4) of the Community Design Regulation, “the validity of a Community design may not be put in issue in an action for a declaration of non-infringement”. In other words, during the litigation the RCD had to be treated as if it was valid.
And… it turns out this assumption was correct in the view of OHIM’s Invalidity Division, who found the grounds of invalidity presented by Samsung, including over 60 alleged prior designs, to be unfounded. The decision itself was relatively unremarkable, particularly in view of the other recent Apple tablet RCD invalidity decisions discussed here, and turned very much on the facts.
Samsung also unsuccessfully contested the validity of another of Apple’s tablet RCDs (RCD no. 0001236590-0001, decision here). So, despite the crushing blow of the non-infringement declaration obtained by Samsung in the UK, Apple can at least retain some pride that these RCDs were held to be valid by OHIM.
However, the story by no means ends here. Samsung can appeal OHIM’s Invalidity Division decisions if they so desire to OHIM's Boards of Appeal, and, if that doesn’t go their way, they then have the General Court and, finally, the CJEU to turn to. Invalidity at four instances. The saga continues…
 |
| The Apple/Samsung catfight shows no signs of stopping. |
The validity of the RCD was not in question in the UK litigation last year; according to Article 84(4) of the Community Design Regulation, “the validity of a Community design may not be put in issue in an action for a declaration of non-infringement”. In other words, during the litigation the RCD had to be treated as if it was valid.
And… it turns out this assumption was correct in the view of OHIM’s Invalidity Division, who found the grounds of invalidity presented by Samsung, including over 60 alleged prior designs, to be unfounded. The decision itself was relatively unremarkable, particularly in view of the other recent Apple tablet RCD invalidity decisions discussed here, and turned very much on the facts.
Samsung also unsuccessfully contested the validity of another of Apple’s tablet RCDs (RCD no. 0001236590-0001, decision here). So, despite the crushing blow of the non-infringement declaration obtained by Samsung in the UK, Apple can at least retain some pride that these RCDs were held to be valid by OHIM.
However, the story by no means ends here. Samsung can appeal OHIM’s Invalidity Division decisions if they so desire to OHIM's Boards of Appeal, and, if that doesn’t go their way, they then have the General Court and, finally, the CJEU to turn to. Invalidity at four instances. The saga continues…
Apple's Cool design registration not invalid according to OHIM
Reviewed by Darren Smyth
on
Tuesday, August 06, 2013
Rating:
Reviewed by Darren Smyth
on
Tuesday, August 06, 2013
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html