DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003056449-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-10-04

R1651/2020-3

Contested design: 003056449-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the design holder’s costs.

Show verbatim operative text

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

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

ACTIVA Grillküche GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Wilhelmstraße 10, 95100 Selb, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

TARGA GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Coesterweg 45, 59494 Soest, Germany

Prior art cited (3)

OtherD1⚠ rejected as evidence

offer letter depicting a grill sent by Guangzhou Hungkay Co. Ltd. to the invalidity applicant’s employee

offer letter

Utility modelD2

Chinese utility model showing a grill

CN 204 410 600 · Chinese utility model publication · disclosed 2015-06-24

Web disclosureD3⚠ rejected as evidence

image of a grill embedded in the statement of grounds

disclosed 2016-04-05

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5Article 6Article 7(2)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant challenged the grill design for lack of novelty and individual character based mainly on Chinese utility model CN 204 410 600 and two other prior disclosures.
  • The holder argued that the relevant prior design had been disclosed by the designer’s successor-in-title within the Article 7(2) grace period and therefore could not be relied on against the contested RCD.
  • The Board agreed that D2 had been published within the grace period by Guangzhou Hungkay as successor-in-title of the designer, while D1 and D3 did not assist the appeal.
  • Because D2 could not be taken into account as an obstacle to novelty or individual character, the appeal was dismissed.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurC. Negro
  • MemberH. Salmi
  • RegistrarH.Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
frFrenchhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)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
R0677/2023-32024-03-07Decision confirmedArt 7(2)5
R2336/2022-32023-11-27Decision confirmedArt 7(2)5
R1827/2019-32021-05-27Decision confirmedArt 7(2)5
R1828/2019-32021-05-27Decision confirmedArt 7(2)5
R1829/2019-32021-05-27Decision confirmedArt 7(2)5
R1825/2019-32021-01-11Decision confirmedArt 7(2)5
R1562/2022-32023-05-31Decision confirmedArt 7(2)3
R0542/2022-32023-04-03Decision confirmedArt 7(2)3