Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-11-14
R1284/2021-3
Contested design: 005321494-0013
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurueckgewiesen. 2. Die Inhaberin traegt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerdeverfahrens.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Papierfabriek Doetinchem B.V.via PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
Terborgseweg 52, 7005 BB Doetinchem, Niederlande
Holder · RCD owner
Sprick GmbH Bielefelder Papier- und Wellpappenwerke & Co.via PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Hanfstrasse 23, 33607 Bielefeld, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
Packing machine / paper-roll dispenser element
RCD No 1457279-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-03-21
Packing machine part / dispenser head
RCD No 3507086-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-03-21
Packing machine part / dispenser head
RCD No 3507086-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-03-21
Packing machine
RCD No 3507086-0003 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-03-21
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder argued that the semicircular attachments and the overall proportions of its dispenser head created a different overall impression and that the cited earlier art had only a narrow scope.
- ›The invalidity applicant maintained that the earlier dispenser head designs, especially D2, already disclosed the same truncated-pyramidal head with square openings and raised rim.
- ›The Board found D2 sufficient and held that the small height difference and the semicircular attachments would be seen as technical refinements rather than features changing the overall impression.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the invalidation for lack of individual character was upheld.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberC. Bartos
- Registrarp.o. M. Chaleva
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0181/2025-3 | 2025-05-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0827/2024-3 | 2025-03-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1336/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0797/2024-3 | 2025-01-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1123/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1125/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1124/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1015/2024-3 | 2024-11-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |