Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-06-25
R1217/2018-3
Contested design: 002577155-0008
Outcome
The contested decision is annulled and RCD No 2 577 155-0008 is declared invalid; the design holder is ordered to bear the costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision and declares contested design No 2 577 155-0008 invalid; 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
MEKRA Lang GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Buchheimer Straße 4, 91465 Ergersheim, Germany
Holder · RCD owner
Oto Numune Otomotiv Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketivia PDF extraction
Türkiye (TR)
Nilüfer Köyü Nilüfer CD No:123, Osmangazi - Bursa, Turkey
Represented by
Prior art cited (3)
rearview mirror (left side)
German design No 42 009 004 993-0001 · German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA) · disclosed 2010-07-09
rearview mirror (right side)
German design No 42 009 004 993-0002 · German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA) · disclosed 2010-07-09
rearview mirror
DM/73786 · WIPO Hague Express database · disclosed 2010-10-31
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›MEKRA Lang (invalidity applicant/appellant) argued the contested rearview mirror RCD No 2 577 155-0008 lacks individual character in light of prior German design D2 (published July 2010); claimed differences (folding arm, proportions, cover shape, linear patterns) are immaterial or functionally dictated.
- ›Design holder (Oto Numune) argued there were substantial differences in the shapes, structures, proportions of supports, angled vs. oval mirror covers, and the prior designs' linear patterns, and referred to a favourable Turkish court decision.
- ›The Board found the designer's freedom is wide, the designs share highly similar overall shapes (L-shape, two legs, curved connector, beveled edges, trough cover), and the identified differences (linear patterns on prior design cover, different colouring representation) are not significant enough to produce a different overall impression.
- ›The Board concluded that the contested RCD and prior design D2 produce the same overall impression; the appeal was upheld, the contested decision annulled, and the RCD declared invalid.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberC. Negro
- Registrarp.o. I. Romero Conrad
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 |
| R0092/2022-3 | 2022-10-25 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |