Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-10-30

R1928/2018-3

Contested design: 000322557-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed; the invalidity applicants are ordered to bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. Die Antragsteller tragen die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerdeverfahrens

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Andrzej Bakvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Biala 65, 87-100 Torun, Polen

Represented by

Holder · RCD owner

Hallufix AGvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Tulbeckstr. 32, 80339 München, Deutschland

Represented by

Utility modelD1

Orthopädische Vorrichtung zur Korrektur von Zehenfehlstellungen (hallux valgus splint), Fig. 7

DE 203 12 159 U1 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, Patentblatt · disclosed 2003-11-13

Utility modelD2

Orthopädische Vorrichtung zur Korrektur von Zehenfehlstellungen, Fig. 8

DE 203 12 159 U1 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, Patentblatt · disclosed 2003-11-13

Utility modelD3

Orthopädische Vorrichtung zur Korrektur von Zehenfehlstellungen, Fig. 13

DE 203 12 159 U1 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, Patentblatt · disclosed 2003-11-13

Article 25(1)(a)Article 25(1)(b)Article 3(a)Article 4(1)Article 5Article 6Article 7(1)Article 8(1)Article 4(2)Article 52Article 64(1)Article 70(1)

›The invalidity applicants (appellants) argued the RCD's representations were contradictory, that the pelotte and cushion should be excluded from the overall impression assessment under Article 4(2) GGV, that design features were solely technically determined under Article 8(1) GGV, and that the earlier utility model DE 203 12 159 anticipated the design.
›The holders argued representations were consistent (showing the device on both feet and in various states), that pelotte and cushion were visible in use and therefore protected, that the design resulted from aesthetic choices (as evidenced by designer's affidavit and design awards), and that the utility model showed different/insufficient embodiments.
›The Board found the RCD represented one unitary product in different states and perspectives; rejected Article 4(2) GGV argument as inapplicable; dismissed Article 8(1) GGV argument for lack of evidence; and found the utility model's Figures 7, 8 and 13 created a different overall impression from the RCD due to the absence of the large bandage, cushion and pelotte in the prior art.
›The appeal was dismissed; applicants bear all costs; the request for oral proceedings was rejected as unnecessary.

Language	Type	Source link
enEnglish (en)	machine translated	Download original from EUIPO ↗
deGerman	original	Download original from EUIPO ↗