DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002246694-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-04-25

R1396/2021-3

Contested design: 002246694-0001

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text

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

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Heco Nordiska Aktiebolagvia PDF extraction

Sweden (SE)

Rocknevägen 16, 33573 Hillerstorp, Sweden

Holder · RCD owner

Troldtekt A/Svia PDF extraction

Denmark (DK)

Sletvej 2A, 8310 Tranbjerg J., Denmark

Prior art cited (1)

Catalog

Earlier screw design with branching pattern on the screw head

Ejot DDS screw · Ejot product catalogue 'ETICS Anchors' · disclosed 2011-06-01

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The design holder appealed, disputing that the earlier Ejot DDS screw had been sufficiently disclosed before the filing date and arguing that material, colour and pattern differences gave the contested screw a different overall impression.
  • The invalidity applicant maintained that the only visible part during normal use was the screw head and that the earlier DDS screw head showed the same characteristic raised branching pattern.
  • The Board found the earlier design sufficiently disclosed through catalogues and product sheets and held that the slight differences in colour, material and head contour did not outweigh the strong similarity in the screw-head pattern.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the first-instance invalidation for lack of individual character was confirmed.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurA. Pohlmann
  • MemberE. Fink
  • Registrarp.o. R. Vidal

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)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
R0181/2025-32025-05-27Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0827/2024-32025-03-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1336/2024-32025-03-03Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0797/2024-32025-01-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1123/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1125/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1124/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1015/2024-32024-11-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5