Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-01-22
R1708/2016-3
Contested design: 001670167-0006
Outcome
The appeal is upheld, the contested decision is annulled, and registered Community design No 1 670 167-0006 is declared invalid; the RCD proprietor is ordered to bear the costs.
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)
Mobile phone model Comfort 1010 of AURO
www.inside-handy.de (Q3 2008)
Magazine article about Comfort 1010 of AURO
www.chip.de · disclosed 2008-08-12
Mobile phone model fono e90 of Hagenuk
www.inside-handy.de (Q4 2009)
Mobile phone model fono e90 of Hagenuk
www.t-online.de
Mobile phone model Comfort 1020 of AURO
www.inside-handy.de (Q1 2009)
Comfort 1020 of AURO in magazine Freizeit Revue
Freizeit Revue magazine · disclosed 2010-01-06
Mobile phone model Comfort 1060 of AURO
www.inside-handy.de (Q1 2009)
Comfort 1060 of AURO article
www.blog.sotel.de · disclosed 2009-07-15
Mobile phone model PowerTel M5000 of Amplicom
www.inside-handy.de (Q3 2008)
PowerTel M5000 of Amplicom in MediaSeller magazine
MediaSeller magazine · disclosed 2009-09-01
PowerTel M5000 of Amplicom in Telecom Handel magazine
Telecom Handel magazine · disclosed 2008-11-03
Mobile phone model PowerTel M5010 of Amplicom
www.inside-handy.de (Q3 2009)
PowerTel M5010 of Amplicom in Freizeit Revue magazine
Freizeit Revue magazine · disclosed 2010-01-06
Mobile phone model Life of Emporia in Hartlauer brochure
Hartlauer brochure · disclosed 2008-08-01
Mobile phone Life of Emporia in Der Standard
Der Standard newspaper · disclosed 2006-12-01
Mobile phone model TELME C95 of Emporia
www.areamobile.de · disclosed 2009-05-01
TELME C95 of Emporia in Freizeit Revue
Freizeit Revue magazine · disclosed 2010-01-06
Mobile phone model fono c200 of Hagenuk
www.inside-handy.de (Q3 2009)
fono c200 of Hagenuk in Pro idee catalogue
Pro idee - Ideen aus alter Welt catalogue (winter 2009)
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant (invalidity applicant/appellant) argued that the RCD lacked novelty and individual character relative to multiple prior mobile phone designs (D1–D19), contending that differences identified by the holder were immaterial details.
- ›Holder (RCD proprietor/respondent) argued that prior art had not been sufficiently proven as publicly disclosed, and that the RCD produced a different overall impression given visible differences in key shape, icons, arrangement, and contrast.
- ›The Board accepted disclosure of D5-D6 and D18-D19 via website publications and magazine evidence, and found the contested RCD shared almost identical contours, arrangement, and icon placement with these prior designs, with only negligible differences.
- ›With a wide designer freedom, the Board held that the slight differences did not escape the overall impression of the informed user, finding no individual character under Article 6 CDR; the appeal was upheld and the RCD declared invalid.
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 |