DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007737143-0004

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-08-25

R1654/2021-3

Contested design: 007737143-0004

CDRAppellant: applicantmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

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

Prior art cited (1)

Catalog⚠ rejected as evidence

crucible

Model 600 kg mg Riciclaggio · internal comparison table, catalog, invoice and technical drawing · disclosed 2007-07-01

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(a)Article 25(1)(b)Article 3(a)Article 4(2)Article 5Article 6Article 7Article 8(1)Article 8(2)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant attacked the crucible design using the alleged earlier model 'Model 600 kg mg Riciclaggio' and also relied on invisibility, technical-function and must-fit objections.
  • The design holder argued that the cited earlier model had not been properly disclosed before filing and that the Article 4(2), Article 8(1) and Article 8(2) objections were unsupported.
  • The Board admitted supplementary evidence but held that the relied-on older model and related images were not proven to have been disclosed before the filing date, and it also rejected the visibility and technical-function attacks.
  • The appeal failed in full and costs were shifted to the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurA. Pohlmann
  • MemberE. Fink
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

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
R1696/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 52(2), Art 63(2)17
R1699/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 52(2), Art 63(2)17
R1693/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 52(2), Art 63(2)17
R1694/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 52(2), Art 63(2)17
R1698/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 52(2), Art 63(2)17
R1653/2021-32022-03-29Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2), Art 52(2), Art 63(2)17
R1695/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 8(2), Art 52(2), Art 63(2)15
R0947/2025-32026-04-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 52(2), Art 63(2)11
R1654/2021-3 — EUIPO design Board of Appeal decision · DesignVerdict