DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002701359-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-02-26

R0859/2020-3

Contested design: 002701359-0001

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's costs and fees.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

André Walentavia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Chiemgaustraße 136, 81549 Mänchen, Germany

Represented by

Nadine Friese

Holder · RCD owner

Baldag Raduvia PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

Str.Fagetului, Nr.20-C, Oradea, Romania

Represented by

INTELECT SRL

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureWikipedia

Wikipedia article 'Mouthguard' with illustrative image

Wikipedia

PublicationD1

mouthguard image from Journal of the American Dental Association article

JADA Vol. 132, July 2001 · Journal of the American Dental Association · disclosed 2001-07-01

PublicationD2

mouthguard image from Journal of the American Dental Association article

JADA Vol. 132, July 2001 · Journal of the American Dental Association · disclosed 2001-07-01

PublicationD3

mouthguard image from Journal of the American Dental Association article

JADA Vol. 132, July 2001 · Journal of the American Dental Association · disclosed 2001-07-01

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6Article 7(1)Article 8(1)Article 70(1)

Argument summary

  • The design holder appealed the invalidation of its mouthguard design, arguing that the Wikipedia evidence was unreliable and that the contested design differed from the earlier mouthguard images in the JADA article.
  • The invalidity applicant did not file observations in reply to the appeal.
  • The Board held that the Invalidity Division had used the wrong JADA image as its comparison point, but after carrying out a fresh assessment it found prior design D2 produced the same overall impression as the contested RCD given the limited design freedom for mouthguards and the minor nature of the differences.
  • The appeal was dismissed; the contested RCD remained invalid for lack of individual character and the design holder was ordered to bear costs and fees.

Deciding panel

  • ChairTh. M. Margellos
  • RapporteurH. Salmi
  • MemberC. Negro
  • Registrarp.o. APAOLAZA ALM,Eva

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
R0181/2025-32025-05-27Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0827/2024-32025-03-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1336/2024-32025-03-03Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0797/2024-32025-01-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1123/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1125/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1124/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1015/2024-32024-11-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5