Onderdeel van een complex product
OHIM Invalidity Division 3 januari 2012, ICD 8368 (A.C.V. Manufacturing NV tegen AIC S.A.)
Vergelijk ook IEF 10850. Gemeenschapsmodellenrecht 000916317-0001 voor een zeefbodem van een warmtewisselaar. Nietigheidsprocedure. De zeef is onderdeel van een complex product, dat wel zichtbaar blijft bij normaal gebruik van het model. Er is geen bewijs overlegd dat er prior art is onthuld voor de registratiedatum. De essentiële kenmerken zijn niet enkel toe te schrijven aan de technische functie, dus bescherming ex art. 8(1) Community Design Regulation (=CDR). Tot slot: "none of the features of the contested design are dictated by a “must-fit” condition in relation to its integration in a heat exchanger or a boiler. As far as the interconnection is concerned, only the geometrical parameter of the diameter and the perimeter of the component sieve bottom serve the technical function of the complex mechanical engine."
(16) In conclusion, it is estimated that none of the documents provided prove the disclosure of the prior designs before the date of filing of the contested RCD and, thus, the disclosure of prior designs within the meaning of Article 7 CDR has not been established.
(23) Given the fact, that all the essential features of the appearance of the RCD are not solely dictated by its technical function, the RCD is not deprived of protection within the meaning of Article 8(1) CDR.
(24) Moreover, as accepted above (B.1), the sieve bottom, represented in the RCD, is a necessary component, existing as the bottom part of a heat exchanger. However, none of the features of the contested design are dictated by a “must-fit” condition in relation to its integration in a heat exchanger or a boiler. As far as the interconnection is concerned, only the geometrical parameter of the diameter and the perimeter of the component sieve bottom serve the technical function of the complex mechanical engine. As it has already been demonstrated, all the characteristic elements of the RCD were chosen on the basis of creative liberty and not on the criterion of functionality and efficient or improved mechanical interconnection.
(26) The RCD being found to fulfil the requirements of protection within the meaning of Articles 4(2) and 8 CDR and in the absence of evidence proving that a prior design has been made available before the date of filing of the contested RCD, the Application for a declaration of invalidity must be rejected as unfounded.
