Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-02-11
R2491/2020-3
Contested design: 006352332-0002
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's costs and fees in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Wobben Properties GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Dreekamp 5, 26605 Aurich, Germany
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
TA Towers ApSvia PDF extraction
Denmark (DK)
Dalum, 5250 Odense SV, Denmark
Represented by
Prior art cited (3)
tubular tower and construction procedure; prior design for wind-turbine tower segment
WO 2010/055535 A1 · WIPO publication · disclosed 2010-05-20
flange segment for a wind turbine steel tower segment and method
DE 10 2017 106 201 A1 · German patent publication · disclosed 2018-09-27
photos and video stills of modular wind-turbine tower segments
Flickr / YouTube screenshots · Flickr and YouTube · disclosed 2016-09-29
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder argued that the prior patent drawing showed only a preform rather than a final design, that differences in bends, flaps, holes and angles changed the overall impression, and that the contested segment remained visible and not solely technical.
- ›The invalidity applicant responded that the patent publication validly disclosed the relevant prior design and that the dominant appearance of an elongated bent tower segment remained the same, with holes and screws carrying little weight.
- ›The Board agreed with the Invalidity Division that the WIPO-published patent disclosed a prior design and that the informed user of modular wind-turbine tower segments would focus on the strongly similar elongated bent-sheet appearance.
- ›It held that the prior design destroyed the contested RCD's individual character, dismissed the appeal, and ordered the design holder to bear costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurC. Bartos
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2274/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0093/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2273/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1575/2025-3 | 2026-04-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1395/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1394/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1318/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1396/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |