DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002582122-0004

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

R0448/2022-3

Contested design: 002582122-0004

CDRAppellant: applicantmedium-confidence extraction

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 Nichtigkeitsantragstellerin trägt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und Beschwerdeverfahrens.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Hotelausstattung Schranz GmbHvia PDF extraction

Austria (AT)

Industrieparkstraße 15, 9300 St. Veit / Glan, Österreich

Holder · RCD owner

Halfar System GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Ludwig-Erhard-Allee 23, 33719 Bielefeld, Deutschland

Prior art cited (5)

PublicationD1⚠ rejected as evidence

Aktionsblatt „Angebot des Monats Wellnesstasche Garda“

Aktionsblatt · disclosed 2012-10-08

Web disclosureD2

Bauanleitung „DIY No sew Beach tote“

website publication · disclosed 2014-06-10

Web disclosureD3

Bauanleitung „Simple Summer Totebag“

website publication · disclosed 2014-06-16

Web disclosureD4

YouTube video „Horizontal Cruising Tote Bag with Rope Handles“

YouTube · disclosed 2014-11-05

OtherD5⚠ rejected as evidence

undated photos allegedly showing the bag “Adria”

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant relied on several earlier bag disclosures and argued that the contested bag lacked novelty and individual character and was purely functional in part.
  • The holder disputed the authenticity and disclosure of some earlier evidence, especially the Garda and Adria materials, and argued that the overall impression was clearly different.
  • The Board held that D1 and D5 were not proven disclosures and that D2 to D4, even if considered, created a different overall impression from the contested bag.
  • The appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against the invalidity applicant.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurA. Pohlmann
  • 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