Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-01-22
R1706/2016-3
Contested design: 001670167-0003
Outcome
The contested decision is annulled, the RCD is declared invalid, and the RCD proprietor bears the costs and fees of the invalidity applicant.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision and declares the contested RCD invalid; 2. Orders the RCD proprietor to bear the fees and costs incurred by the invalidity applicant.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Wolfgang Wessvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Joseph-Wild-Str. 20, 81829 Munich, Germany
Holder · RCD owner
Doro ABvia PDF extraction
Sweden (SE)
Magistratsvägen 10, SE-226 43 Lund, Sweden
Represented by
Prior art cited (19)
AURO Comfort 1010 mobile phone keypad — launched Q3 2008
www.inside-handy.de; www.chip.de · disclosed 2008-08-12
AURO Comfort 1010 — magazine article
www.chip.de · disclosed 2008-08-12
Hagenuk fono e90 mobile phone keypad — launched Q4 2009
www.inside-handy.de
Hagenuk fono e90
www.t-online.de
AURO Comfort 1020 mobile phone keypad — launched Q1 2009
www.inside-handy.de
AURO Comfort 1020 — Freizeit Revue magazine
Freizeit Revue · disclosed 2010-01-06
AURO Comfort 1060 mobile phone keypad — launched Q1 2009
www.inside-handy.de
AURO Comfort 1060 — blog article
www.blog.sotel.de · disclosed 2009-07-15
Amplicom PowerTel M5000 mobile phone keypad — launched Q3 2008
www.inside-handy.de
Amplicom PowerTel M5000 — MediaSeller magazine
MediaSeller · disclosed 2009-09-01
Amplicom PowerTel M5000 — Telecom Handel magazine
Telecom Handel · disclosed 2008-11-03
Amplicom PowerTel M5010 mobile phone keypad — launched Q3 2009
www.inside-handy.de
Amplicom PowerTel M5010 — Freizeit Revue magazine
Freizeit Revue · disclosed 2010-01-06
Emporia Life mobile phone keypad — Hartlauer brochure August 2008
Hartlauer brochure · disclosed 2008-08-01
Emporia Life — Der Standard newspaper
Der Standard · disclosed 2006-12-01
Emporia TELME C95 mobile phone keypad — launched May 2009
www.areamobile.de
Emporia TELME C95 — Freizeit Revue (February 2012 variant)
Freizeit Revue · disclosed 2010-01-06
Hagenuk fono c200 mobile phone keypad — launched Q3 2009
www.inside-handy.de
Hagenuk fono c200 — Pro idee catalogue winter 2009
Pro idee - Ideen aus alter Welt catalogue
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Wolfgang Wess (invalidity applicant) appealed the rejection of his invalidity application against Doro AB's RCD for a mobile phone function-key row, arguing the RCD is identical to D1-D2 and other prior designs except for immaterial details, and the Invalidity Division erred in its novelty and individual character assessment.
- ›Doro AB (holder) argued that the prior design disclosures were insufficiently proven, the RCD has distinguishable features in icon shape, key separation and contrast, and the informed user notices these differences.
- ›The Board found D1-D2 and D14-D15 sufficiently disclosed; with wide designer freedom and almost unlimited icon choices, the many strong similarities (four-key layout, same icon positions, same receiver angles, same arrows) dominate the overall impression; slight differences in key separation, icon size and letter 'c' do not change that impression.
- ›The appeal is upheld; the RCD is declared invalid for lack of individual character; the holder bears costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2504/2022-3 | 2023-06-28 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2030/2022-3 | 2023-06-07 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2415/2018-3 | 2023-03-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2416/2018-3 | 2023-03-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2417/2018-3 | 2023-03-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2443/2020-3 | 2023-01-17 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0068/2022-3 | 2023-01-09 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0093/2022-3 | 2022-10-25 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |