DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001275150-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-10-08

R1254/2018-3

Contested design: 001275150-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the applicant is ordered to bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerdeverfahrens.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Schoenberger Germany Enterprises GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Zechstr. 1-7, 82069 Hohenschäftlarn, Deutschland

Represented by

Boden Rechtsanwälte

Holder · RCD owner

Metallwarenfabrik Marktoberdorf GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Johann-Georg-Fendt-Str. 38, 87616 Marktoberdorf, Deutschland

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(a)Article 3(a)

Argument summary

  • Applicant (Schoenberger) argued the contested BBQ-stand RCD was invalid under Article 25(1)(a)/Article 3(a) CDR because its seven views allegedly showed two different products — a frame with wheels and a frame without wheels — rather than the appearance of a single product.
  • Holder (Metallwarenfabrik) argued that views 1.1–1.3 showed the complete product with wheels from different perspectives, while views 1.4–1.7 were partial views that detailed the frame element without wheels but were consistent with the complete product.
  • The Board found that the partial views (1.4, 1.5, 1.7) clearly showed axle stubs at the exact positions where the complete views showed wheels, confirming all views depicted a single product from different angles; the applicant's attempt to derive two conflicting variants from the partial views was rejected.
  • The Board confirmed the Invalidity Division's finding that the representation showed the appearance of a single unified product and dismissed the appeal.

Deciding panel

  • ChairTh. M. Margellos
  • RapporteurE. Fink
  • MemberC. Bartos
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R2028/2023-32024-04-15Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(a)4
R0574/2022-32023-01-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(a)4
R0573/2022-32023-01-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(a)4
R1956/2020-32022-11-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(a)4
R1101/2020-32022-11-03Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(a)4
R1800/2021-32022-09-05Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(a)4
R2060/2019-32022-02-01Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(a)4
R2790/2019-32021-05-18Decision annulledArt 25(1)(a)4