DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007737143-0003

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

R1698/2021-3

Contested design: 007737143-0003

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

Mod. 2.2. pressofusione camera calda · internal comparison table, invoices, undated catalog and images · disclosed 2000-01-01

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 relied on the alleged earlier crucible model 'Mod. 2.2. pressofusione camera calda' together with visibility, technical-function and must-fit objections.
  • The design holder argued that the earlier designs invoked in the invalidity request had not been proven disclosed and that the additional Article 4(2), Article 8(1) and Article 8(2) attacks were unsupported.
  • The Board admitted supplementary evidence but found that it still did not prove disclosure of the specific relied-on older models before filing, and it rejected the non-visibility and technical-function objections as well.
  • The appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against 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
R1654/2021-32022-08-25Decision 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