Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-08-24
R1818/2019-3
Contested design: 001935123-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the invalidity applicant must bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerdeverfahrens.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
EIZO GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Siemensallee 84, 76187 Karlsruhe, Deutschland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
caresyntax GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Komturstr. 18a, 12099 Berlin, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (7)
internet printout 'Multiconsole D2'
www.s-cape.com · s-cape website
product information 'Medical Multiconsole'
product information sheet marked '01/2013'
product catalogue 'RadiForce – Surgical Monitor Solutions'
product catalogue
product catalogue 'RadiForce – L&E Series'
product catalogue bearing Copyright 2011
MediSol case study 'Inselspital Bern'
case study
online article 'Multifunktionale Operationssäle: Einer für alle'
www.aerzteblatt.de · Deutsches Ärzteblatt website
online article 'Amalie Sieveking Krankenhaus – Glas-OP'
www.henke-partner.de · Henke Partner website
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that, in normal use in an operating theatre, only the monitor flap's front view mattered and that earlier monitor publications and catalogues showed the same simple screen appearance.
- ›The design holder replied that the invalidity request was insufficiently substantiated because no concrete earlier design had been properly identified and reproduced, and that new designs introduced only on appeal were outside the case.
- ›The Board held that appeal-stage additions could not expand the subject-matter and that the sources originally filed either showed the holder's own product, were too poor in quality, or failed to identify with precision which earlier monitor image was relied upon.
- ›The appeal was dismissed because no earlier design was substantiated with sufficient clarity to permit the required individual comparison.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberC. Bartos
- Registrarp.o. M. Chaleva
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1263/2021-3 | 2023-02-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2283/2019-3 | 2021-02-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2349/2019-3 | 2020-09-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1648/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1649/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1650/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0116/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2) | — | 5 |