DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001733239-0004

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-05-27

R1828/2019-3

Contested design: 001733239-0004

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs of both 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

SWITCHLAB INC.via PDF extraction

Taiwan (TW)

8F., No. 66, Zhongzheng Rd., Xinzhuang Dist., New Taipei City 24243, Taiwan

Holder · RCD owner

WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Hansastr. 27, 32423 Minden, Germany

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCDD1⚠ rejected as evidence

electrical connector

RCD No 1691577-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2010-04-14

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(2)Article 6Article 7(1)Article 7(2)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that the contested electrical connector was an invisible component of a complex product and lacked individual character over earlier RCD No 1691577-0001.
  • The design holder argued that printed-circuit-board terminals may remain visible in normal use and that the earlier RCD was its own grace-period disclosure under Article 7(2) CDR.
  • The Board held that the earlier registered design could not be used as prior art because its publication fell within the grace period protecting the holder’s own disclosures.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity applicant was ordered to bear the costs of both proceedings.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurE. Fink
  • MemberC. Bartos
  • Registrarp.o. R. Vidal

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R1827/2019-32021-05-27Decision confirmedArt 7(2), Art 4(2)7
R1829/2019-32021-05-27Decision confirmedArt 7(2), Art 4(2)7
R1825/2019-32021-01-11Decision confirmedArt 7(2), Art 4(2)7
R0677/2023-32024-03-07Decision confirmedArt 7(2)5
R0489/2022-32023-12-19Decision confirmedArt 4(2)5
R2336/2022-32023-11-27Decision confirmedArt 7(2)5
R0878/2022-32023-02-16Decision confirmedArt 4(2)5
R1696/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 4(2)5