Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-05-25
R2260/2016-3
Contested design: 001315733-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Der Antragsteller trägt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerdeverfahrens.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Peter Reisenthelvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Zeppelinstr. 4, D-82205 Gilching, Deutschland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Mühlberger GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Bonner Wall 118, D-50677 Köln, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
Körbe (baskets / carry bags)
Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster Nr. 613500-0001 · EUIPO designs bulletin · disclosed 2006-11-21
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant (Peter Reisenthel) appealed the rejection of its invalidity application, arguing the contested RCD (Behältnisse/carry bag) lacks individual character over his earlier registered basket design (RCD 613500-0001), stressing that both share a characteristic encircling frame; he also raised German UWG unfair competition arguments and cited a German court infringement decision.
- ›The design holder (Mühlberger) argued the designs produce different overall impressions — the prior art resembles a classic picnic basket while the contested RCD gives the impression of an outdoor pack sack; German court decisions were not binding and concerned a different design.
- ›The Board found the new invalidity ground based on German UWG/public policy inadmissible as first raised on appeal; on individual character, despite shared features (roughly cuboid shape, flexible material, circumferential frame with loops), the differences in the handle construction and frame placement are clearly visible and functionally significant, resulting in different overall impressions; the contested RCD has individual character.
- ›Appeal dismissed; applicant bears costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberA. Szanyi Felkl
- RegistrarI. Romero Conrad
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1858/2022-3 | 2024-11-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1)(b), Art 6(2) | — | 5 |
| R1857/2022-3 | 2024-11-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1)(b), Art 6(2) | — | 5 |
| R2054/2021-3 | 2022-08-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1)(b), Art 6(2) | — | 5 |
| R0303/2021-3 | 2022-07-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1)(b), Art 6(2) | — | 5 |
| R2349/2019-3 | 2020-09-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1)(b), Art 6(2) | — | 5 |
| R1283/2018-3 | 2019-03-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1341/2017-3 | 2018-06-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1434/2020-3 | 2021-06-25 | Decision annulled | Art 6(1)(b), Art 6(2) | — | 4 |