Verschil met prior art te groot, Auping-bed terug naar nietigheidsafdeling

EU IPO Board of Appeal 11 mei 2016, IEF 16059; IEFbe 1846 (Koninklijke Auping tegen Napco Beds)
Modellenrecht. Auping is houdster van Gemeenschapsmodel 2094615-0001 voor een bed. Napco verzoekt om de nietigheid van het model vanwege ontbreken van nieuwheid of eigen karakter, de 'avek model noflik' waren eerder. De verschillen* beïnvloeden de algemene indruk en zullen door de geïnformeerde gebruiker worden opgemerkt. De nietigheidsafdeling heeft de het model nietig verklaard, de kamer van beroep vernietigt en verwijst de zaak terug.

* 29. (...)
* in the RCD the headboard is place on the bed frame, while in the prior designs it is place behind the bed frame;
* The RCD has only four legs which are attached to the very end of the four corners of the bedframe. The prior designs have fout legs placed approximately 10 cm away from the corners of the bedframe. In addition they have at least two, but probably actually four additional legs at the end of the middle parts of the beds and in the case of D2, at least one, but probably actually two, further legs placed at the middle part of the bed;
* in the RCD the legs are part of the bedframe and form a diagonal line towards the frame, while in the prior designs the legs are nog part of the frame and are attached with a horizontal and rectangular-shaped element;
in the RCD the legs have a distinc shape and round edges, while in D1 the legs are tube-shaped and in D2 the legs are block shaped.

30. The Board also notes that, at least in D2, the headboard is wider than the actual bed which allow the sidetable to fit partially in front of the headboard. Further, the contested RCD has two additional rectangular elements on the top of it, which are thinner than the elements below them. It is nog clear from the images of the prior designs whether such elements are also included in the prior designs, because they are covered by sheets. It seems that there is an additional mattress in both of them, but what can not be seen is whether it consists of one mattress or two mattresses as in the contested RCD.

31. In the opinion of the Board, all of these differences are notable in the overall impression of the designs and will not escape the informed user's notice.