DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000565015-0002

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-11-23

R1221/2021-3

Contested design: 000565015-0002

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The contested decision is set aside, the invalidity application is rejected, and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Die angefochtene Entscheidung wird aufgehoben. 2. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklaerung wird zurueckgewiesen. 3. Die Nichtigkeitsantragstellerin traegt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerdeverfahrens.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Intercon Tierbedarf GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Brahmkoppel 4, 24558 Henstedt-Ulzburg, Deutschland

Holder · RCD owner

Bruegglivia PDF extraction

Switzerland (CH)

Hofstr. 5, 8590 Romanshorn, Schweiz

Represented by

v. Bezold & Partner

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosureD1

Type A dog transport box for vehicles

www.hundeboxen.de (archive.org) · Internet Archive · disclosed 2002-04-14

Web disclosureD2

Type X dog transport box for vehicles

www.hundeboxen.de (archive.org) · Internet Archive

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6Article 7

Argument summary

  • The design holder argued that the older dog-box disclosures were broader, more angular double-door boxes and therefore produced a different overall impression from the contested compact single-door box.
  • The invalidity applicant maintained that the earlier archived dog-box designs disclosed all relevant features and that one half of the double box could be considered a damaging earlier design.
  • The Board found clear differences in width, door arrangement, corner construction, bar layout and locking mechanism, with the front-view differences carrying particular weight in use.
  • The appeal succeeded, the first-instance invalidation was annulled, and the invalidity application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurA. Pohlmann
  • 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
R1784/2022-32024-08-01Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R1936/2023-32024-04-09Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R2238/2022-32024-01-15Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R0605/2021-32022-12-13Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R1223/2021-32022-11-23Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R1222/2021-32022-06-01Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R1220/2021-32022-06-01Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5
R0024/2021-32022-03-16Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b)5