DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008028385-0002

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-06-21

R2022/2021-3

Contested design: 008028385-0002

Appellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal inadmissible

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible, and the appellant must bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Die Beschwerde wird als unzulässig zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Beschwerdeführerin trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

LEGO Juris A/Svia PDF extraction

Denmark (DK)

Koldingvej 2, 7190 Billund, Dänemark

Represented by

Bomhard IP, S.L.

Holder · RCD owner

Guangdong Xingbao Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

Longtan Industrial Area, Shangxiang Village, Lianshang Town, Chenghai District, Shantou City, Guangdong Province, Volksrepublik China

Represented by

NLO Shieldmark B.V.

Legal grounds invoked

Article 57Article 35(1)Article 81(1)

Argument summary

  • The design holder appealed the invalidity decision but filed its statement of grounds in English even though German was the language of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
  • The invalidity applicant remained the respondent, while the Registry later alerted the appellant that the appeal might be inadmissible because no German translation had been filed within one month.
  • The Board held that the late-filed German translation could not cure the defect after expiry of the statutory period, so no valid statement of grounds had been filed in the language of proceedings within four months of notification of the contested decision.
  • The appeal was declared inadmissible and the design holder was ordered to bear the appeal costs.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurC. Bartos
  • MemberE. Fink
  • Registrarp.o. M. Chaleva

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
R1172/2022-32022-12-02Appeal inadmissibleArt 35(1)5
R1171/2022-32022-11-30Appeal inadmissibleArt 35(1)5
R0658/2020-32020-08-24Appeal inadmissibleArt 35(1)5
R0302/2019-32019-11-18Appeal inadmissibleArt 35(1)5
R2200/2018-32019-10-15Appeal inadmissibleArt 35(1)5
R2198/2018-32019-10-15Appeal inadmissibleArt 35(1)5
R2199/2018-32019-10-15Appeal inadmissibleArt 35(1)5
R1926/2018-32018-12-10Appeal inadmissibleArt 35(1)5