DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000699194-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-02-01

R2060/2019-3

Contested design: 000699194-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

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

XXXLutz KGvia PDF extraction

Austria (AT)

Römerstrasse 39, 4600 Wels, Österreich

Holder · RCD owner

Franke Technology and Trademark Ltdvia PDF extraction

Switzerland (CH)

Sonnenbergstraße 9, 6052 Hergiswil, Schweiz

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(a)Article 3(a)Article 25(1)(b)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued both that the filing showed inconsistent views that did not relate to a single design under Article 3 CDR and that the visible features of the roll-up draining-mat/cutting-board design were solely technically dictated under Article 8(1) CDR.
  • The design holder replied that all views depicted the same product from different angles and that the combination of rods, bands and profiling reflected aesthetic design choices rather than only technical necessity.
  • The Board agreed with the holder that the mixed drawings and photo still coherently represented one design and that the applicant had not proved that all relevant features were exclusively technical.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity applicant was ordered to bear the costs of both instances.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurA. Szanyi Felkl
  • MemberC. Bartos
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

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
R0947/2025-32026-04-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 25(1)(a)7
R2328/2024-32025-08-22Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 25(1)(a)7
R0494/2023-32024-03-19Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R0862/2023-32024-02-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R0861/2023-32024-02-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R2289/2022-32023-12-13Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R2068/2019-32023-06-12Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R0878/2022-32023-02-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7