DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002874644-0002

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-11-12

R2423/2019-3

Contested design: 002874644-0002

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The contested decision is annulled, Community design No. 2 874 644-0002 is declared invalid, and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant’s costs and fees in both instances.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Annuls the contested decision; 2. Declares Community design No 2 874 644-0002 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

THEBEN AGvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Hohenbergstraße 32, 72401 Haigerloch, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

WENZHOU ALION ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

NO.221 Weiershi Road, Yueqing Economic Development Zone, Yueqing, Wenzhou 325600, People’s Republic of China

Prior art cited (1)

Catalog

Termina TR 610 / TR 611 chronometer design

SMITHS Timeguard 2000 / theben product catalogues · SMITHS Timeguard and theben catalogues · disclosed 2000-02-01

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that the contested chronometer design lacked novelty and individual character over the earlier Termina TR 610 / TR 611 timer-switch design disclosed in catalogues from 2000 onwards.
  • The design holder did not rebut the additional catalogue evidence filed on appeal and had previously succeeded only because the first-instance evidence of disclosure was considered insufficient.
  • The Board admitted the supplementary catalogue evidence, found that it sufficiently proved disclosure of the prior design from at least 2000, and held that the contested and prior designs shared the same dominant T-shaped overall appearance and hardware arrangement.
  • Because the remaining lid difference was insufficient to change the informed user’s overall impression, the appeal was upheld and the contested RCD was declared invalid.

Deciding panel

  • ChairTh. M. Margellos
  • RapporteurH. Salmi
  • MemberC. Bartos
  • Registrarp.o. R. Vidal

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R2504/2022-32023-06-28Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R2030/2022-32023-06-07Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R2415/2018-32023-03-01Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R2416/2018-32023-03-01Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R2417/2018-32023-03-01Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R2443/2020-32023-01-17Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R0068/2022-32023-01-09Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R0093/2022-32022-10-25Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5