DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003517234-0095

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-09-28

R0485/2021-3

Contested design: 003517234-0095

CDRAppellant: applicant

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 des Beschwerdeverfahrens.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Mesan Plastik ve Metal Sanayi Anonim Sirketivia PDF extraction

Türkiye (TR)

Selimpasa Mah. 5001 Sok. No: 10, 34590 Silivri/Istanbul, Türkei

Holder · RCD owner

Lamello AGvia PDF extraction

Switzerland (CH)

Hauptstraße 149, 4416 Bubendorf, Schweiz

Prior art cited (1)

Patent

connection element and method for connecting two components

WO 2017/140399 A1 · patent application of the holders

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that all appearance features of the fastening-element design were dictated solely by technical function, relying in particular on the holders' patent disclosure and the product's fitting requirements.
  • The holders replied that the basic body form, cover and visible configuration reflected design choices and that alternative connector shapes existed, so the design was not exclusively technical.
  • The Board agreed with the first instance that the evidence did not prove that the contested design's appearance was exclusively dictated by technical function under Article 8(1) CDR.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity application remained rejected.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurC. Bartos
  • 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
R0494/2023-32024-03-19Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R0861/2023-32024-02-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R0862/2023-32024-02-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R2289/2022-32023-12-13Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R2068/2019-32023-06-12Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R0878/2022-32023-02-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R1699/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R1693/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7