DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002680827-0006

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-07-16

R1386/2020-3

Contested design: 002680827-0006

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The contested decision is set aside, the invalidity application is rejected, and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Die angefochtene Entscheidung wird aufgehoben. 2. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung wird zurückgewiesen. 3. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerdeverfahrens.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

MUSIC Tribe Global Brands Ltd.via PDF extraction

VG

Trident Chambers, Wickhams Cay 1, 281 Waterfront Drive, Road Town, Tortola VG1110, British Virgin Islands

Holder · RCD owner

Adam Hall GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Adam-Hall-Str. 1, 61267 Neu-Anspach, Deutschland

Prior art cited (5)

PublicationD1

manual image of a compact portable array speaker system

Bose L1 Compact Portable Array System manual · Bose manual with ©2009 notice

Web disclosureD2

C-RAY/8 Column Amplifier System image

www.monacor.co.uk · monacor.co.uk

Web disclosureD3

ELEMENTS portable PA system image

https://hkaudi.com · hkaudi.com

Web disclosureD4

HK Audio presents LUCAS Nano 300 image archived on the web

http://hkaudio.us · web.archive.org · disclosed 2015-02-08

Web disclosureD5

EVOX J8 Active Two-Way Portable Array image

www.rfc.it · rfc.it

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The design holder argued on appeal that ultra-compact column PA systems allow only limited design freedom and that the cited earlier speaker systems created a different overall impression for the informed user.
  • The invalidity applicant maintained that the earlier speaker designs D1 to D5 already disclosed the same rounded base and column arrangement and that the differences identified by the holder were minor.
  • The Board found that D1 and the other cited designs produced a different overall impression from the contested design, particularly in the structure of the base and the integration of the column, so the contested design retained individual character.
  • The contested decision was set aside, the invalidity application was rejected, and costs were awarded against the invalidity applicant.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurE. Fink
  • MemberA. Szanyi Felkl
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

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