Geen bewijs openbaarmaking eerder model Blompot

OHIM 16 september 2015, IEF 15276 (Desch tegen Blom)
Uitspraak ingezonden door Bert Gravendeel, Gravendeel advocaten. Vergelijk met IEF 13524. Gemeenschapsmodel. Desch vordert de nietigverklaring van twee geregistreerde gemeenschapsmodellen (Blompot) op grond van slaafse nabootsing van zijn eerder model. De bewijslast van algemene publicatie van een model is voor de eiser. Desch heeft niet kunnen bewijzen dat zijn model reeds openbaar was gemaakt waardoor de eis van nietigheidsverklaring wordt afgewezen.

(16) The Invalidity Division will carry out an overall assessment of such evidence by taking account of all the relevant factors in the particular case. Disclosure cannot be proven by means of probabilities or suppositions, but must be demonstrated by solid and objective evidence of effective and sufficient disclosure of the earlier design.
(26) To sum up, there is no evidence to prove that a prior design was made available to the public within the meaning of Article 7(1) CDR prior to the date of filing of the contested RCD. Specifically, even if the catalogues display the pots, which are also mentioned in the sale figures, there is no additional evidence to confirm the disclosure. To establish disclosure on the basis of these two pieces of evidence without confirmation by additional independent documents would amount to a guess hazarding. The Office must ground its evaluation of the evidence on the procedural truth and in the case at issue it is impossible to establish truthfully or at least with a reasonable certainty that the prior design was disclosed. The burden of proof when disclosure is involved is on the applicant and in this case the applicant did not back up its claim with enough evidence.