Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-03-11
R0016/2019-3
Contested design: 003521855-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity 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
MOHABA GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Mirweilerweg 8, 52349 Düren, Deutschland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Böckling GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Neue Anlage 7-11, 74861 Neudenau, Deutschland
Prior art cited (4)
Glasbecher 'Voluto' in Katalog 'Kreative Ideen für Ihren Glühweinbecher & Ausschank 2017' der Antragstellerin
Katalog der Antragstellerin, online ab 9.12.2016
Mehrfarbig lackierter Glasbecher im Luminarc-Katalog (ARC International), 1. Halbjahr 2015
Katalog Luminarc / ARC International, 1. Halbjahr 2015 · disclosed 2015-01-01
Becher 'Weihnachtsserie mit Sternaufdruck' der Firma Hirsch Glas GmbH
http://www.hirschglas.com/hirsch-glas_produkte4jpg · www.hirschglas.com, Änderungsdatum 29/11/2009
Stölzle 'Olympic' und 'Black & White' Gläser mit Innen- und Außenlackierung
blog.barstuff.de/stoelzle-olympic-und-black-white/ · blog.barstuff.de, Artikel vom 23/08/2016 · disclosed 2016-08-23
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant (MOHABA) argued that its 'Voluto' glass mug had been made available to the public before the contested RCD's filing date, and that the prior designs shown in the Luminarc catalogue, the Hirsch Glas website, and the Stölzle article also preceded the filing; the mug shape and multi-colour inside/outside lacquering were therefore known.
- ›The design holder (Böckling) did not submit observations in reply at either instance.
- ›The Board found that none of the evidence submitted at first instance individually identifies a specific prior design with sufficient precision: the applicant referenced groups of cups and mugs without singling out the particular prior design it relies on, as required by Article 28(1)(b)(v) GGDV and established case-law. This failure to define the subject matter of the invalidity application before the Invalidity Division cannot be remedied on appeal.
- ›The Board confirmed the first-instance rejection: since no prior design was properly identified and placed into the proceedings at first instance, the application was insufficiently substantiated; the appeal was dismissed.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberE. Fink
- Registrarp.o. M. Chaleva
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 52(2), Art 28(1)(b), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R0862/2023-3 | 2024-02-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(1), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0861/2023-3 | 2024-02-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(1), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2444/2020-3 | 2023-05-15 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(1), Art 52(2) | — | 7 |
| R1695/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 52(2) | — | 7 |
| R1694/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 52(2) | — | 7 |
| R1693/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 52(2) | — | 7 |
| R1699/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 52(2) | — | 7 |