← Back to search
Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-04-14
R0568/2019-3
Contested design: 000124912-0001
CDRAppellant: holder
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
The appeal is dismissed.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen.
CostsNot specified
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Micromic S.r.l.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Silvio Pellico 19/9°, 00040 Pomezia RM, Italien
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Vorwerk Elektrowerke GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Mühlenweg 17-37, 42270 Wuppertal, Deutschland
Legal grounds invoked
Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(2)Article 4(3)Article 8(1)Article 8(2)
Argument summary
- ›The holder (Vorwerk) appealed the Invalidity Division's decision that the dust filter bag design was invalid as a non-visible component part of the complex product 'vacuum cleaner' under Article 4(2)(a) CDR; it argued the bag is an accessory, not a component part, and is visible during bag-changing which falls within intended use.
- ›The invalidity applicant (Micromic) responded that the bag is an essential component part, functionally indispensable, that its features are dictated solely by technical function under Articles 8(1) and (2) CDR, and that bag-changing constitutes maintenance excluded from 'intended use' under Article 4(3) CDR.
- ›The Board agreed the dust bag is a component part of the complex product vacuum cleaner; the intended use of a vacuum cleaner is the act of cleaning, during which the bag is not visible as the cleaner remains closed; bag-changing is maintenance within Article 4(3) CDR.
- ›The Board upheld the Invalidity Division and dismissed the appeal; the contested RCD does not satisfy Article 4(2)(a) CDR and is therefore invalid under Article 25(1)(b) CDR.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurA. Szanyi Felkl
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0510/2019-3 | 2020-04-02 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2), Art 4(3) | — | 9 |
| R0051/2017-3 | 2021-12-09 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2), Art 4(3) | — | 7 |
| R0914/2018-3 | 2020-10-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 7 |
| R0912/2018-3 | 2020-10-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 7 |
| R0913/2018-3 | 2020-10-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 7 |
| R0911/2018-3 | 2020-05-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 7 |
| R0050/2017-3 | 2021-12-09 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2), Art 4(3) | — | 6 |
| R0907/2018-3 | 2020-10-29 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2) | — | 6 |