DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005321494-0016

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-11-24

R1276/2021-3

Contested design: 005321494-0016

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

Papierfabriek Doetinchem B.V.via PDF extraction

Netherlands (NL)

Doetinchem, Niederlande

Holder · RCD owner

Sprick GmbH Bielefelder Papier- und Wellpappenwerke & Co.via PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Bielefeld, Deutschland

Represented by

Taylor Wessing

Prior art cited (4)

Registered RCDD1

Packmaschinen, Papierrollen

GGM Nr. 1457279-0001 · Blatt für Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster · disclosed 2017-03-21

Registered RCDD2

Packmaschinen (Teil von -)

GGM Nr. 3507086-0001 · Blatt für Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster · disclosed 2017-03-21

Registered RCDD3

Packmaschinen (Teil von -)

GGM Nr. 3507086-0002 · Blatt für Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster · disclosed 2017-03-21

Registered RCDD4

Packmaschinen

GGM Nr. 3507086-0003 · Blatt für Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster · disclosed 2017-03-21

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that the contested dispenser-head design lacked novelty and individual character over four earlier RCDs and that key differences were technically dictated.
  • The holder replied that the semi-cylindrical holder, mounting, and additional features created a distinct overall impression and were not negligible or purely functional.
  • The Board found the earlier designs produced a different overall impression, and that even assuming D1 disclosure, none justified invalidity under Articles 5, 6 or 8(1).
  • The appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against the invalidity applicant.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurE. Fink
  • MemberC. Bartos
  • 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
R0116/2025-32025-07-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0115/2025-32025-07-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1669/2023-32024-11-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2453/2023-32024-10-30Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0952/2021-32024-09-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2140/2023-32024-08-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2585/2023-32024-08-06Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1745/2023-32024-06-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5