Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-11-12
R2837/2019-3
Contested design: 002899815-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's fees and costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the fees and costs 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
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
chronometer / timer switch product 'SUL 181'
SMITHS Timeguard 2000 product catalogue / SUL 181 · SMITHS Timeguard catalogue
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed the rejection of its invalidity application and relied on catalogues and a witness statement to prove prior disclosure of a 'SUL 181' timer design.
- ›The design holder filed no observations in reply before the Board.
- ›The Board admitted only the supplementary 2000 catalogue evidence, but found that the catalogue material still did not objectively prove public disclosure under Article 7(1).
- ›Without proven disclosure, novelty and individual character could not be denied; the appeal was dismissed and costs were imposed on the invalidity applicant's opponent as ordered in the operative part.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberC. Bartos
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0538/2025-3 | 2025-09-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0536/2025-3 | 2025-09-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2063/2021-3 | 2022-07-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0363/2021-3 | 2022-07-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0051/2017-3 | 2021-12-09 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1855/2020-3 | 2021-07-02 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1856/2020-3 | 2021-06-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1243/2017-3 | 2020-06-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |