Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-09-30
R2349/2019-3
Contested design: 001215412-0018
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the appellant must bear the costs incurred by the respondent in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Beschwerdeführerin trägt die der Beschwerdegegnerin entstandenen Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und Beschwerdeverfahrens.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
AMC-Competent HandelsGmbHvia PDF extraction
Austria (AT)
Seefeldmühle 297, 5421 Adnet, Österreich
Represented by
Clemens Thiele
Holder · RCD owner
Kurz Natursteine GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Werner-von-Siemens-Straße 19, 64625 Bensheim, Deutschland
Prior art cited (4)
grave monument from an undated RMP Grafmonumenten catalogue extract
catalog extract and supporting emails
Grabmale (grave monuments)
GGM No 1 645 375-0052 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2009-12-23
grave monument designs shown on six undated catalogue pages
catalog extract (Anlage 3)
official extracts depicting a two-part grave monument
Amtsauszüge
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested gravestone design lacked novelty and individual character and was a component part of a complex product, relying on prior designs D1 to D4.
- ›The holder disputed disclosure of the unregistered prior designs and maintained that the contested RCD produced a different overall impression from all cited designs.
- ›The Board agreed that D2 had been disclosed and held that the contested design differed in its two-part geometric composition; even assuming D1, D3 and D4 were considered, they did not change the result.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity application remained rejected; the applicant bears the costs of both instances.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Bartos
- MemberE. Fink
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1650/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 6(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 13 |
| R1648/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 6(2), Art 28(1)(b), Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 13 |
| R1649/2019-3 | 2020-09-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 6(2), Art 28(1)(b), Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 13 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b), Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 11 |
| R1635/2019-3 | 2020-10-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 6(2) | — | 11 |
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R0861/2023-3 | 2024-02-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(1), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R0862/2023-3 | 2024-02-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(1), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 9 |