Anna Maria Stein in IPKat segnala interessante decisione sull’oggetto: 3rd Board of Appeal 11.09.2024 , case R 5/2024-3, Ekomill OÜ v. Ecosauna Project OÜ.
<<20 The invalidity applicant invoked as prior design D1, an oval-shaped wooden sauna as manufactured and sold by a Lithuanian company. It provided as evidence of disclosure two screenshots of two posts allegedly from Facebook, dated 22 August 2013 and July 2014 (Annex 3), and indicated two hyperlinks in its observations. It did not file any additional evidence at the appeal stage.
21 The Invalidity Division considered that this evidence constitutes sufficient proof of disclosure. The Board does not concur.
22 Although the appearance of a picture of a design on the internet constitutes a publication within the meaning of Article 7(1) CDR (20/10/2021, T‑823/19, Bobby pins, EU:T:2021:718, § 32), the invalidity applicant must provide solid evidence of this event of disclosure.
23 To establish disclosure, a printout or a screenshot should show the full URL address of a website, demonstrating the source of design disclosure on the internet (20/10/2021, T‑823/19, Bobby pins, EU:T:2021:718, § 33-34).
24 As correctly pointed out by the design holder, the indication of a hyperlink in the invalidity applicant’s observations cannot suffice in this respect. Hyperlinks or URL addresses per se cannot be considered sufficient evidence for proving the disclosure of a prior design. Even if these are active, they should be supplemented with additional evidence, such as a printout or a screenshot of the relevant information contained therein (07/02/2007, T 317/05, Guitar, EU:T:2007:39, § 43) including the full URL address. This is because information accessible through a hyperlink or URL address may later be altered, removed or difficult to identify. Even assuming that the URL link would display the screenshot, as shown in Annex 3, it is impossible for the Board to ascertain whether the content to be found under the hyperlink has been changed or removed over time.
25 In this regard, the Board notes that this assessment aligns with the ‘CP 10 Common Practice – Criteria for assessing disclosure of designs on the internet’ (Section 2.4.4, p. 29) established by the IP offices of the European Union in the framework of the European Union Trade Mark and Design Network, with the purpose of offering guidance on the sources, reliability, presentation, and assessment of online evidence. Accordingly, when the screenshot does not contain all relevant information, namely source, date, and depiction of the invoked prior design, additional evidence should be submitted. Although these texts are not binding for the Board, it may take it into account in its decision-making process.
26 Considering that the screenshots provided do not show the source of disclosure, and that the event of disclosure cannot be proved by means of probabilities or suppositions but must be demonstrated by solid and objective evidence (09/03/2012, T-450/08, Phials, EU:T:2012:117, § 24-25), the Board finds that the invalidity applicant failed to submit sufficient proof of disclosure of the prior design D1 within the meaning of Article 7(1) CDR>>.
La decisione va condivisa; solo che un difensore, minimamente prudente e pratico della rete, lo sa e lo fa d’istinto