Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-02-05
R1661/2018-3
Contested design: 002538140-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the design holder is ordered to bear the invalidity applicant's costs in both proceedings.
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.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Eternit Österreich GmbHvia PDF extraction
Austria (AT)
Eternitstraße 34, 4840 Vöcklabruck, Austria
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
ETERNIT N.V.via PDF extraction
Belgium (BE)
Kuiermansstraat, 1, 1880 Kapelle-op-den-Bos, Belgium
Represented by
Prior art cited (6)
Noise-reducing building panel depicted on page 39 of 'Lärmschutz' brochure by Betonwerk Rieder GmbH
Internet Archive Wayback Machine / www.rieder.at; PDF creation date 25 June 2010 · disclosed 2013-03-04
Building panels from Wayback Machine screenshot
http://www.blechdachhandel.de · Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2014-07-29
Building panels from Wayback Machine screenshot
http://www.laukien.de · Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2012-01-06
Building panels from Wayback Machine screenshot
http://www.dachpaneele.at · Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2012-10-08
Community design panel
RCD No 2 310 201-0001 · EUIPO eSearch plus
Invalidity applicant's own façade plates produced and marketed in the 1980s
Eternit-Werke brochures 1981, 1982, 1984
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Design holder (ETERNIT N.V.) appealed the Invalidity Division's declaration of invalidity of its panel RCD No 2 538 140-0001, arguing the sector should be limited to fibrous façade panels, the informed user should be a highly attentive professional, the designer had only average freedom, and the contested RCD differed from D1 in ridge/valley proportions and fibre-cement texture.
- ›Invalidity applicant (Eternit Österreich GmbH) maintained that the sector is not limited to façade panels, the informed user focuses on overall geometry rather than exact measurements, and D1 and the contested RCD produce the same overall impression.
- ›The Board found both designs are building panels showing flat linear surfaces with identical parallel ridge-and-valley structures, same structure and sequence; slight differences in widths of ridges and valleys are minimal and not perceptible by the informed user; material and number of ridges are irrelevant to individual character assessment.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the contested RCD lacks individual character under Article 6 CDR with respect to D1; design holder bears costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurA. Szanyi Felkl
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2471/2023-3 | 2024-08-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2422/2022-3 | 2024-01-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2206/2021-3 | 2022-12-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0133/2022-3 | 2022-12-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0055/2022-3 | 2022-10-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2054/2021-3 | 2022-08-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2028/2021-3 | 2022-07-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0303/2021-3 | 2022-07-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |