Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-03-29
R1653/2021-3
Contested design: 007372958-0006
Outcome
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 Beschwerdeverfahrens.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Musto Et Bureau Srlvia PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Molise, 26/28, 40024 Osteria Grande (BO), Italien
Represented by
Francesco de Sanzuane
Holder · RCD owner
Rauch Furnace Technology GmbHvia PDF extraction
Austria (AT)
Fichtenweg 3, 4810 Gmunden, Österreich
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
crucible
Mod. 2.2 ton Magnesio · Undated Musto catalog / invoices / internal comparison table · disclosed 2000-01-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant attacked the crucible design on multiple grounds, relying mainly on the alleged earlier design “Mod. 2.2 ton Magnesio” shown in a catalog, invoices, internal tables, images, and later-filed materials.
- ›The holder argued that no concrete earlier design had been properly disclosed, that the crucible remained visible in normal use, and that the technical-function and must-fit objections were unsupported.
- ›The Board admitted the late-filed materials but held that none of them proved disclosure of the specific relied-on earlier designs, and it also rejected the Article 4(2), Article 8(1), and Article 8(2) objections.
- ›The appeal failed in full; all asserted invalidity grounds remained rejected and costs were shifted to the applicant.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurA. Pohlmann
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1698/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 52(2), Art 63(2) | — | 17 |
| R1699/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 52(2), Art 63(2) | — | 17 |
| R1693/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 52(2), Art 63(2) | — | 17 |
| R1694/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 52(2), Art 63(2) | — | 17 |
| R1654/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 52(2), Art 63(2) | — | 17 |
| R1696/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 52(2), Art 63(2) | — | 17 |
| R1695/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 8(2), Art 52(2), Art 63(2) | — | 15 |
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 52(2), Art 63(2) | — | 11 |