DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002526160-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-12-13

R0605/2021-3

Contested design: 002526160-0001

CDRAppellant: holdermedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Appeal upheld (reversal)

The contested decision is annulled and the case is remitted to the Invalidity Division to continue examining the invalidity application.

Show verbatim operative text(fr)

1. La décision attaquée est annulée; 2. L’affaire est renvoyée à la division d’annulation afin de poursuivre l’examen de la demande en nullité.

CostsEach party bears its own costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Kappershandel B.V.via PDF extraction

Netherlands (NL)

Katernstraat 33 F/G, 1321 NC Almere, Pays-Bas

Represented by

Onel Trademarks

Holder · RCD owner

Wahl Clipper Corporationvia PDF extraction

United States (US)

PO Box 578 2900 North Locust Street, 61081-0578 Sterling, Illinois, Etats-Unis d’Amérique

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 8(1)Article 8(2)Article 4

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant had obtained first-instance invalidation on the sole ground that the clip design’s visible features were exclusively dictated by technical function.
  • The design holder argued that at least some features, including the top area and lower curvature, reflected aesthetic choices and that Article 8(2) did not apply either.
  • The Board held that the evidence did not prove every relevant feature was exclusively dictated by technical function, so Article 8(1) could not sustain invalidity.
  • The appeal was upheld, the first-instance decision annulled, and the case remitted for examination of novelty and individual character.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • MemberM. Bra
  • MemberS. Rizzo
  • RegistrarE. Apaolaza

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0494/2023-32024-03-19Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)6
R0861/2023-32024-02-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)6
R0862/2023-32024-02-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)6
R2289/2022-32023-12-13Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)6
R2068/2019-32023-06-12Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)6
R0878/2022-32023-02-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)6
R0485/2021-32022-09-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)6
R1693/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)6