Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-01-11
R1203/2016-3
Contested design: 000762851-0001
Outcome
The contested decision is set aside, the invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant bears the costs of both the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die angefochtene Entscheidung wird aufgehoben. 2. Der Antrag auf Erklärung der Nichtigkeit wird zurückgewiesen. 3. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerdeverfahrens.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Rietze Automodelle GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
In der Herrnau 1, D-90518 Altdorf, Deutschland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaftvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Berliner Ring 2, D-38440 Wolfsburg, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (5)
Fahrzeuge (VW Caddy Life 2004)
RCD Nr. 49895-0002 · Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster-Register · disclosed 2003-12-09
VW Caddy Life (2004–2010) — Wikipedia-Artikel (undatiert)
Wikipedia
VW Caddy Life 1,9 TDI Testbericht
www.autobild.de · disclosed 2004-06-17
Golf billig und praktisch — Testbericht
www.auto-motor-und-sport.de · disclosed 2004-05-26
VW Caddy 1,9 TDI Life, Erstzulassung 03/2005 — Gebrauchtwagenangebot
http://suchen.mobile.de
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Volkswagen AG (holder) appealed the invalidation of its VW Caddy Maxi RCD (No 762851-0001), arguing that the informed user of cars has elevated awareness; market constraints limit designer freedom; and the contested design differs materially from the prior Caddy Life in length, rear door arrangement, bumpers, grille, mirrors and rear door design.
- ›Rietze Automodelle (applicant) contended that the RCD and the 2004 Caddy Life produce the same overall impression, differences are only details of interest to design specialists, and the informed user focuses on function not appearance.
- ›The Board found D2 undated and therefore excluded; D1 and D3-D5 were disclosed before the filing date. The Board held that the RCD is noticeably longer, has a one-piece tailgate, retractable body-coloured mirrors, differently shaped grille, headlights and bumpers — differences visible and significant to the informed user who knows of model-line refreshes.
- ›The appeal was upheld: the overall impression differs; the invalidity application is rejected; the applicant bears costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberA. Szanyi Felkl
- Registrarp.o. F. Piaser
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0414/2018-3 | 2020-01-07 | Decision annulled | Art 6(1) | — | 5 |
| R0732/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 4 |
| R1214/2023-3 | 2024-02-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 4 |
| R1455/2022-3 | 2023-11-06 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 4 |
| R0574/2022-3 | 2023-01-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 4 |
| R0573/2022-3 | 2023-01-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 4 |
| R0618/2021-3 | 2022-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 4 |
| R0619/2021-3 | 2022-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1) | — | 4 |