Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-04-04
R1270/2018-3
Contested design: 002291112-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the design holder is ordered to bear the invalidity applicant's fees and costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the fees and costs incurred by the invalidity applicant.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
RAF-STAL sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Węgierska 78, 33-300 Nowy Sącz, Poland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Dongguan Weihong Hardware and Plastic Products Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
188 Industrial Park, Pingshan Village, Tangxia Town, Dongguan City, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (3)
Hinge regulator patent by the design holder, published 18 July 2013
EP 2803296 B1 (also published as US 8 661 619 B2) · European Patent Office · disclosed 2013-07-18
Certificate of registration of RCD
RCD No 2 002 956-0016 · EUIPO
Certificate of registration of RCD
RCD No 1 969 361-0002 · EUIPO
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Design holder (appellant) argued that the Invalidity Division erred in finding all features solely dictated by technical function; it claimed aesthetic considerations (soft, rounded shapes adding elegance) also played a role, and that the decision merely asserted no aesthetic elements existed without identifying which specific features were technically dictated.
- ›Invalidity applicant's extension request was rejected; it relied primarily on the design holder's own patent EP 2803296 B1 which describes the same components performing the same technical functions.
- ›The Board agreed with the contested decision: applying the DOCERAM test, the patent demonstrates that every element of the RCD (round frame, ratchet mechanism, angle brackets) performs a defined technical function; rounded shapes equally serve easy installation without sharp edges; no aesthetic considerations were shown to have influenced the appearance.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; all features solely dictated by technical function under Article 8(1) CDR; costs against the design holder.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1005/2018-3 | 2021-07-01 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1) | — | 5 |
| R1006/2018-3 | 2021-07-01 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1) | — | 5 |
| R1004/2018-3 | 2021-06-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1) | — | 5 |
| R1011/2018-3 | 2021-06-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1) | — | 5 |
| R1007/2018-3 | 2021-06-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1) | — | 5 |
| R1003/2018-3 | 2021-06-09 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1) | — | 5 |
| R0510/2019-3 | 2020-04-02 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1) | — | 5 |
| R0740/2018-3 | 2020-02-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1) | — | 5 |