DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007761895-0002

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-12-07

R2206/2021-3

Contested design: 007761895-0002

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and each party must bear its own appeal costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders each party to bear its own costs in the appeal proceedings.

CostsEach party bears its own costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Jürgen Heckelsmüllervia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Ottobeurer Straße 15, 87784 Westerheim, Germany

Represented by

Reiner Helge

Holder · RCD owner

Michał Cukrowskivia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Ul. Wybickiego 72/6, 87-100 Toruń, Poland

Represented by

Katarzyna Natalia Krupa-Lipińska

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCD

gratings [parts of building]

RCD No 5 301 595-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-07-02

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant relied on earlier RCD No 5 301 595-0001 and argued that the contested airfield-grating design lacked novelty and individual character.
  • The design holder emphasised differences in chambers, connectors and openings and argued that technical constraints limited design freedom.
  • The Board agreed with the Invalidity Division that the chequered pattern and surface treatment dominated the overall impression, and that the differences were minor in normal use.
  • The appeal was dismissed, but each party was left to bear its own appeal costs for reasons of equity.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurC. Negro
  • MemberM. Bra
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R2422/2022-32024-01-30Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)9
R0133/2022-32022-12-07Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)9
R2054/2021-32022-08-19Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)9
R2453/2023-32024-10-30Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)7
R2471/2023-32024-08-26Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)7
R1747/2022-32024-01-29Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R2502/2022-32023-06-12Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)7
R1103/2022-32023-02-15Decision confirmedArt 4(1), Art 25(1)(b)7