Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-06-29
R2216/2016-3
Contested design: 001339246-0004
Outcome
The contested decision is annulled, the invalidity application is rejected, and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the costs of 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
Atos Medical GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Mülheimer Straße 3-7, D-53840 Troisdorf, Deutschland
Holder · RCD owner
Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
August-Horch-Str. 4a, D-51149 Köln, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (6)
Technische Zeichnung 'Adhesive Disc, Flexiderm, Oval' (approved 1995-04-07) — tracheostomy patch
Internal technical drawing (Atos Medical AB) · disclosed 1995-04-07
Technische Zeichnung 'Adhesive Disc, Flexiderm, Oval' (approved 1998-04-14)
Internal technical drawing (Atos Medical AB) · disclosed 1998-04-14
Technische Zeichnung 'Adhesive Disc, Flexiderm, Oval' (approved 2000-05-10) — corroborated by product catalogues 2002/2003 and 2005
Atos Medical AB product catalogues 2002/2003 and 2005 · disclosed 2000-01-01
Technische Zeichnung 'Adhesive Disc, Flexiderm, Oval' (released 2008-06-23)
Internal technical drawing · disclosed 2008-06-23
Technische Zeichnung 'Adhesive Disc, Optiderm, Oval' (released 2008-06-23)
Internal technical drawing · disclosed 2008-06-23
Deutsche Patentoffenlegungsschrift — tracheostomy patch (circular form)
DE 10 2010 048 316 A1 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 2012-04-19
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder (appellant) appealed the first-instance invalidation of tracheostomy patch RCD No 1339246-0004, arguing the contested RCD's oval shape with clearly off-centre opening and right-angle wing-tabs distinguishes it from prior circular designs; most prior art (technical drawings, declaration) was not sufficiently proved as disclosed.
- ›The invalidity applicant (respondent) contended the contested design is merely an elongated prior art variant; opening position is technically determined; and the informed user focuses on functionality over form details.
- ›The Board (applying the same analysis as parallel case R 2215/2016-3) admitted the late-filed product catalogues despite erroneous case number and found only D1 (AS4) and D2 (German patent) adequately proved; in the areas where designer freedom exists (shape and opening arrangement), all three designs differ from the contested RCD, producing a different overall impression.
- ›The first-instance invalidation is annulled; the RCD has individual character; the invalidity applicant bears costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberC. Rusconi
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2215/2016-3 | 2018-06-29 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0837/2020-3 | 2023-08-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R1434/2020-3 | 2021-06-25 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1213/2019-3 | 2020-11-19 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R1042/2018-3 | 2020-09-03 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R1043/2018-3 | 2020-09-03 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R1399/2017-3 | 2019-07-10 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R1546/2018-3 | 2019-01-22 | Decision annulled | Art 6(1)(b) | — | 5 |