DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002588350-0007

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-01-20

R0865/2017-3

Contested design: 002588350-0007

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed; the contested RCD is invalid as its features are solely dictated by technical function under Article 8(1) CDR; the design holder is ordered to pay EUR 1,250 in costs to the invalidity applicant.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings; 3. Fixes the costs to be paid by the design holder to the invalidity applicant for the invalidity and the appeal proceedings at EUR 1,250.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €1,250

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

SATA GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Domertalstr. 20, 70806 Kornwestheim, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

ANEST IWATA Corporationvia PDF extraction

Japan (JP)

3176, Shinyoshida-cho, Kohoku-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa-ken, Japan

Represented by

INTERPATENT

Prior art cited (5)

PatentD1

Low-pressure atomizing spray gun (paint nozzle)

EP 1 108 476 A1 · EPO · disclosed 2001-06-20

PatentD2

Spray gun

EP 2 692 449 A1 · EPO · disclosed 2014-02-05

PatentD3

Spray gun

EP 2 695 678 A1 · EPO · disclosed 2014-02-12

PatentD4

Spray gun (figures identical to D3)

EP 2 703 089 A1 · EPO · disclosed 2014-03-05

CatalogD5

'INNOVATIONS' brochure by ANEST IWATA USA, Inc., showing nozzle images

ANEST IWATA USA, Inc. · disclosed 2008-01-01

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(2)Article 5Article 6Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The design holder (ANEST IWATA) appealed, arguing that cleaning of the spray gun (requiring cap removal) is normal use so the full nozzle tip is visible; that the RCD's features (V-grooves, guide walls) are not solely dictated by technical function because alternative designs with different groove numbers exist; and that the contested decision incorrectly assessed the overall impression of the spray gun rather than the nozzle tip alone.
  • The invalidity applicant (SATA) responded that removing the air cap is maintenance, not normal use; that the patent applications the design holder itself filed explain the technical function of every feature (grooves, guides, conical shape, circular opening); and that following DOCERAM, each feature is solely technically dictated.
  • The Board, applying the DOCERAM judgment, found that all features of the paint nozzle tip (air grooves, guide walls, circular opening, conical shape) are exclusively dictated by the technical function of atomising paint, as evidenced by the design holder's own patent applications; the design holder failed to demonstrate any aesthetic considerations in the choice of features.
  • The appeal was dismissed and invalidity confirmed under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 8(1) CDR, on grounds different from those of the first-instance decision.

Deciding panel

  • ChairTh. M. Margellos
  • RapporteurE. Fink
  • MemberH. Salmi
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R1006/2018-32021-07-01Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R1005/2018-32021-07-01Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R1004/2018-32021-06-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R1011/2018-32021-06-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R1007/2018-32021-06-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R1003/2018-32021-06-09Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R0510/2019-32020-04-02Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R0740/2018-32020-02-26Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7