Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-05-15
R2413/2018-3
Contested design: 000141999-0002
Outcome
The appeal is upheld, the contested first-instance decision is annulled, and the contested RCD is declared invalid; the design holder bears all costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision; 2. Declares Registered Community design No 141999-0002 invalid; 3. Orders the design holder to bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
AVERY ZWECKFORM GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Miesbacher Straße 5, 83626 Oberlaindern/Valley, Germany
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Sanford, L.P.via PDF extraction
United States (US)
6655 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, Atlanta Georgia 30328, United States of America
Represented by
Prior art cited (5)
Operating instructions for sheet-cutting machines dated 04/93, containing image of a print mark
disclosed 1993-04-01
Affidavit of Mr Utz with label '8853' and 'R5015' label rolls used since 1999/2003
disclosed 2003-12-01
Printing apparatus with bar code sensor
EP 1 718 472 B1 · European Patent Office · disclosed 2006-11-08
Tape printing apparatus
EP 09 341 68 B1 · European Patent Office · disclosed 2001-07-25
Label roll 'R5015' produced by Dieter Kempa Etiketten GmbH since December 2003
disclosed 2003-12-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant (appellant) argued all features of the label roll RCD are solely dictated by technical function under Article 8(1) CDR (print marks, oval holes, yellow strip), and that prior designs destroy individual character under Article 6 CDR.
- ›Holder argued the contested RCD is not a component part of a complex product, features like the yellow strip colour and rounded corners serve aesthetic as well as technical purposes, and prior designs invoked do not destroy individual character.
- ›The Board found that features (c) oval holes and (d) black print marks are solely dictated by technical function, but features (a) yellow strip and (b) rounded white labels are not; Article 8(1) invalidity therefore fails.
- ›On individual character, the Board admitted belated evidence of the prior design 'R5015' and found it produces the same overall impression on the informed user as the contested RCD, destroying individual character.
- ›Appeal upheld: the contested RCD lacks individual character over prior design 'R5015'; the first-instance decision is annulled and the RCD declared invalid.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberH. Salmi
- Registrarp.o. R. Vidal
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2414/2018-3 | 2023-03-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R1866/2021-3 | 2022-09-16 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R1072/2020-3 | 2021-07-14 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R1070/2020-3 | 2021-07-05 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R1393/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 6 |
| R1395/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 6 |
| R1394/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 6 |
| R1800/2025-3 | 2026-04-27 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 6 |