R2246/2019-3

• ›Appellants (design holders) sought reinstatement of lapsed Community design registrations No 2 309 245, arguing their representative used the PatOrg software system which auto-generates renewal deadlines, written instructions to renew were in place, and a single unexplained error in an otherwise well-functioning system should be excused.
• ›No opposing private party; the Office (Hauptabteilung Kerngeschäft) had refused the restitutio request, finding the failure to renew was attributable to a lack of due care in the representative's monitoring and control system.
• ›The Board found that the representative could not explain the cause of the missed deadline; the existence of a single error without explanation revealed a structural gap in the control mechanism — no second-check verified that renewal tasks were actually completed. Human errors are foreseeable and do not constitute extraordinary circumstances.
• ›The Board confirmed that the appellants and their representative had not demonstrated all due care required under Article 67(1) CDR; the appeal was dismissed and the lapse stands.

• ChairTh. M. Margellos
• RapporteurA. Szanyi Felkl
• MemberE. Fink
• RegistrarH. Dijkema

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