Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-11-23

R1455/2018-3

Contested design: 001289243-0001

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed; the design holder is ordered to reimburse the invalidity applicant's costs in the appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to reimburse the invalidity applicant's costs in the appeal proceedings.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Scheppach Fabrikation von Holzbearbeitungsmaschinen GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Günzburger Str. 69, 89335 Ichenhausen, Germany

Represented by

Holder · RCD owner

BERGSLAGERNAS JÄRNVARUAKTIEBOLAGvia PDF extraction

Sweden (SE)

Tomasvägen 12, 132 39 Saltsjö-Boo, Sweden

Represented by

National design

Wood-splitting tool (hand-operated wall-mounted log splitter with toothed body and lever blade), published in Norwegian Design Register in 1986

Norwegian IP Register · disclosed 1986-01-01

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 6Article 7

›Design holder (appellant) argued its RCD for wood-splitting tools had individual character over the 1986 Norwegian registered design, contending the designs should be compared only in the disclosed position (open vs. closed lever), the informed user is a highly attentive home consumer, and differences in teeth shape, handle, hinge, blade and safety ring gave the RCD an elegant and slim appearance distinct from the earlier massive design.
›The invalidity applicant maintained the dominant shared features — toothed body, lever with blade and handle, and similar proportions — created the same overall impression, and differences such as lever curvature, grip shape, hinge and safety ring were merely small, hardly perceptible details.
›The Board confirmed that the open/closed position of the lever was not decisive for an informed user familiar with the tool's operation, that designer freedom was not severely restricted, and that the differences (curved lever, rounded teeth, safety ring, hinge shape, handle) had relatively low weight compared to the dominating similarity of the toothed base and lever structure.
›The appeal was dismissed: the RCD lacks individual character versus the earlier Norwegian design; the holder must reimburse the invalidity applicant's appeal costs.

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 ↗