Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-01-22
R1707/2016-3
Contested design: 001670167-0004
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)
Hagenuk fono e90 mobile phone reject/end-call key — launched Q4 2009
www.inside-handy.de
Hagenuk fono e90
www.t-online.de
Emporia Life mobile phone reject key — Hartlauer brochure August 2008
Hartlauer brochure · disclosed 2008-08-01
Emporia Life — Der Standard newspaper
Der Standard · disclosed 2006-12-01
AURO Comfort 1010 mobile phone reject key — launched Q3 2008
www.inside-handy.de
AURO Comfort 1010 — chip.de magazine article
www.chip.de · disclosed 2008-08-12
AURO Comfort 1020 mobile phone reject key — launched Q1 2009
www.inside-handy.de
AURO Comfort 1020 — Freizeit Revue magazine
Freizeit Revue · disclosed 2010-01-06
AURO Comfort 1060 mobile phone reject key — launched Q1 2009
www.inside-handy.de
AURO Comfort 1060 — blog.sotel.de article
www.blog.sotel.de · disclosed 2009-07-15
Amplicom PowerTel M5000 mobile phone reject key — 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 reject key — launched Q3 2009
www.inside-handy.de
Amplicom PowerTel M5010 — Freizeit Revue magazine
Freizeit Revue · disclosed 2010-01-06
Hagenuk fono c200 mobile phone reject key — launched Q3 2009
www.inside-handy.de
Hagenuk fono c200 — Pro idee catalogue winter 2009
Pro idee catalogue
Emporia TELME C95 mobile phone reject key — launched May 2009
www.areamobile.de
Emporia TELME C95 — Freizeit Revue magazine
Freizeit Revue · disclosed 2010-01-06
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Wolfgang Wess (invalidity applicant) appealed the rejection of his invalidity application against Doro AB's RCD for a single mobile phone reject/end-call key, arguing the key is identical to prior designs D1-D2 (Hagenuk fono e90) except for the immaterial addition of a small letter 'c', and that the Invalidity Division erred in its scope-of-protection analysis.
- ›Doro AB (holder) argued that disclosure of D1-D2 was insufficiently proven and that the RCD's key differs in shape, contrast and icon details that the attentive informed user would notice.
- ›The Board found D1-D2 adequately disclosed via two third-party websites showing the same launch date; with almost unlimited designer freedom for a single reject-call key, the dominant similarities (horizontal red receiver, red underscore, same key shape and icon position) outweigh the slight differences (black background, rounded corners, letter 'c').
- ›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 |