← Back to search
Restitutio in integrum · 2020-05-12
R2245/2019-3
Contested design: 002309203-0014
CDRRCD lapsed at decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
The appeal is dismissed.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen.
CostsNot specified
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
DMG MORI SEIKI CO., LTD.via PDF extraction
Japan (JP)
106, Kitakoriyama-cho, Yamatokoriyama-shi, Nara 639-1160, Japan
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
No opposing holder — Restitutio in integrum.
Legal grounds invoked
Article 67(1)Article 67(2)Article 67(3)Article 56Article 57Article 13(1)Article 13(2)Article 37
Argument summary
- ›Applicants (design holders) sought restitutio in integrum after failing to renew GGM application No. 2 309 203 by the October 2018 deadline, arguing their representative's PatOrg software-based system constituted due care and the isolated unexplained error should be excused.
- ›No opposing private party; the EUIPO's first-instance division had refused restitutio on the grounds that the representative failed to implement an adequate double-check control system.
- ›The Board held that due care requires a deadline monitoring system that generally excludes inadvertent missed deadlines; human errors are foreseeable and not extraordinary events justifying restitutio.
- ›The Board confirmed that the absence of a verification mechanism to confirm that renewal requests and payments were actually completed demonstrated a systemic organisational shortcoming, not an excusable isolated error.
- ›Appeal dismissed; the restitutio refusal was upheld and the late renewal filing remains ineffective.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2243/2019-3 | 2020-05-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 67(1), Art 13(3) | — | 7 |
| R2243/2019-3 | 2020-05-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 67(1), Art 13(3) | — | 7 |
| R2243/2019-3 | 2020-05-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 67(1), Art 13(3) | — | 7 |
| R2243/2019-3 | 2020-05-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 67(1), Art 13(3) | — | 7 |
| R2243/2019-3 | 2020-05-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 67(1), Art 13(3) | — | 7 |
| R2243/2019-3 | 2020-05-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 67(1), Art 13(3) | — | 7 |
| R2243/2019-3 | 2020-05-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 67(1), Art 13(3) | — | 7 |
| R2243/2019-3 | 2020-05-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 67(1), Art 13(3) | — | 7 |