DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000699194-0002

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

R2061/2019-3

Contested design: 000699194-0002

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)(b)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that the contested draining-mat/cutting-board design consisted entirely of features chosen for technical reasons, including the number and arrangement of rods, the end bands, and the reduced material between the rod openings.
  • The design holder maintained that the design reflected aesthetic choices in the rod pattern and framing, and submitted alternative comparable designs showing different appearances for products serving similar functions.
  • The Board held that the applicant had not shown that all relevant features were exclusively dictated by technical function, emphasizing the product's role as a visible kitchen accessory and the existence of significant aesthetic leeway.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity applicant was ordered to bear the costs of both the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

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
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
R0485/2021-32022-09-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R1694/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7