Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-06-01
R1222/2021-3
Contested design: 000565015-0003
Outcome
The contested decision is set aside, the invalidity application is rejected, and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die angefochtene Entscheidung wird aufgehoben. 2. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung wird zurückgewiesen. 3. Die Nichtigkeitsantragstellerin trägt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerdeverfahrens.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Intercon Tierbedarf GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Brahmkoppel 4, 24558 Henstedt-Ulzburg, Deutschland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Brügglivia PDF extraction
Switzerland (CH)
Hofstr. 5, 8590 Romanshorn, Schweiz
Represented by
Prior art cited (5)
double dog transport box for vehicles
www.hundeboxen.de 'Typ A' · Wayback Machine / hundeboxen.de · disclosed 2002-04-14
dog transport box for vehicles
www.hundeboxen.de 'Typ X' · Wayback Machine / hundeboxen.de · disclosed 2004-04-05
animal transport box / cage
German design No 40 502 657-0004 · German design register · disclosed 2005-12-24
animal transport box
RCD No 91 061-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2004-02-10
animal transport box
French design No 927 890-002 · French design register · disclosed 1993-03-31
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder argued that the cited earlier transport-box designs, especially the web-archived dog boxes, created a different overall impression because they were broader, more angular and used different door and bar configurations.
- ›The invalidity applicant maintained that the earlier web-disclosed boxes already showed the same trapezoidal vehicle dog cage with the same essential arrangement of bars, doors and side panels.
- ›The Board held that the contested design's compact, rounded single-door cage with round bars, rounded connectors and a vertical locking mechanism differed clearly from the older angular, broader double-door boxes relied on by the invalidity applicant.
- ›The appeal succeeded, the first-instance invalidity decision was set aside and the invalidity application was rejected.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1784/2022-3 | 2024-08-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1936/2023-3 | 2024-04-09 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2238/2022-3 | 2024-01-15 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0605/2021-3 | 2022-12-13 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1221/2021-3 | 2022-11-23 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1223/2021-3 | 2022-11-23 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1220/2021-3 | 2022-06-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0024/2021-3 | 2022-03-16 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |