DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001265995-0003

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-04-17

R0202/2019-3

Contested design: 001265995-0003

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

1. The contested decision is annulled. 2. Registered Community design No 1265995-0003 is declared invalid. 3. The holder shall bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Die angefochtene Entscheidung wird aufgehoben. 2. Das eingetragene GGM Nr. 1265995-0003 wird für nichtig erklärt. 3. Der Inhaber trägt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerdeverfahrens.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Becton Dickinson Rowa Germany GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Rowastr. 1, 53539 Kelberg, Deutschland

Holder · RCD owner

Manfred Ezelvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Auf der Helle 2, 32760 Detmold, Deutschland

Prior art cited (2)

Prior useD1

Deko-Treppe (decorative step/presentation staircase) made of acrylic glass, designed and sold by Herbert Nattmann / Nattmann Kunststoffverarbeitung, Willich, since 1998/1999

Viktoria-Apotheke, Köln; ebay-Shop acrylglas24 · disclosed 1999-01-01

Registered RCDD2

Ausstellungsständer, Ausstellungsvorrichtungen, Verkaufsständer (display stands)

1580515-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2009-07-13

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6(1)Article 7(1)Article 6(2)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant (Becton Dickinson Rowa) argued that the presentation staircase RCD lacks individual character under Article 6 CDR in view of D1 (a two-step acrylic display staircase made and sold by Nattmann Kunststoffverarbeitung since 1998/1999) and D2 (RCD No 1580515-0002); D1's disclosure was supported by sworn declarations, letters, sketches, press articles and eBay printouts.
  • The holder (Manfred Ezel) contested D1's disclosure, arguing that witness Nattmann had an interest in invalidation and that the acrylic staircase was not displayed in the Viktoria-Apotheke before 2012; he maintained that the designs produced different overall impressions.
  • The Board found D1 sufficiently proven as disclosed before the filing date of 18 March 2011 based on a holistic assessment of the evidence, including the 2013 letter from Nattmann, the employee email, sworn declarations, press articles and eBay listings; Nattmann was not connected to the applicant.
  • The Board concluded that D1 produced the same overall impression on the informed user as the contested RCD, given that shared features (three-step form, terrace, lehne, proportions) outweigh minor differences (presence/absence of base plate, step proportions, nubs); the appeal was upheld and the RCD declared invalid.

Deciding panel

  • ChairTh. M. Margellos
  • RapporteurE. Fink
  • MemberC. Rusconi
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R2167/2023-32024-06-10Decision annulledArt 7(1)5
R2443/2020-32023-01-17Decision annulledArt 7(1)5
R0068/2022-32023-01-09Decision annulledArt 7(1)5
R0092/2022-32022-10-25Decision annulledArt 7(1)5
R0093/2022-32022-10-25Decision annulledArt 7(1)5
R0811/2021-32021-10-26Decision annulledArt 7(1)5
R1434/2020-32021-06-25Decision annulledArt 7(1)5
R1856/2019-32021-02-01Decision annulledArt 7(1)5