DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000565015-0004

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

R1223/2021-3

Contested design: 000565015-0004

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 archived earlier dog-box designs were wider, more angular double-door products and therefore did not destroy the individuality of the contested transport box.
  • The invalidity applicant maintained that the earlier dog-box disclosures reproduced the essential visual features of the contested design and deprived it of novelty and individual character.
  • The Board found substantial differences in overall proportions, roof shape, front-door arrangement, locking mechanism and the rounded versus angular presentation of the boxes, especially from the front.
  • The appeal succeeded, the first-instance invalidation was set aside, 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
R1221/2021-32022-11-23Decision 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