Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-01-20
R0657/2020-3
Contested design: 002323154-0002
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and 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
Osmo Holz und Color GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Affhüppen Esch 12, 48231 Warendorf, Deutschland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Bernhard Hirschvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Kroißenmühle 2, 94535 Eging am See, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (3)
German design for ceilings and wall claddings
M91 03 701 · German design register publication · disclosed 1992-03-25
German design for slats, strips, panels and cladding boards
402010000959-0001 · German design register publication · disclosed 2010-04-16
Community design for wooden elements and façade claddings
1615824-0008 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-03-10
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued the contested wood-panel design lacked novelty and individual character because only the front face mattered in normal use and earlier designs D1-D3 already showed the relevant light-dark panel appearance.
- ›The holder argued the contested design’s side profile, groove-and-tongue configuration, and massive smooth panel body contributed decisively to the overall impression and distinguished it from the earlier designs.
- ›The Board agreed with the Invalidity Division that the side surfaces had to be considered, that D1 and D3 lacked the disclosed side profile, and that D2 created a much more articulated and irregular impression than the contested design.
- ›The appeal failed; the contested RCD retained novelty and individual character, and the applicant bore costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberA. Szanyi Felkl
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0116/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0115/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2453/2023-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0952/2021-3 | 2024-09-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2140/2023-3 | 2024-08-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2585/2023-3 | 2024-08-06 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1745/2023-3 | 2024-06-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |