Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-01-30
R0746/2022-3
Contested design: 003009901-0001
Outcome
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
Birner Kunststoff Kästen & Flaschen GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Gerresheimer Str. 2, 92224 Amberg, Deutschland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Frör Kunststofftechnik GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Schornbaumstr. 5, 91052 Erlangen, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (9)
Bottle crate design shown in DPMA register extract
German design No M9 108 980-0001 · German Patent and Trade Mark Office register
Bottle crate design shown in DPMA register extract
German design No M9 108 980-0002 · German Patent and Trade Mark Office register
Bottle crate design shown in DPMA register extract
German design No M9 108 980-0003 · German Patent and Trade Mark Office register
Bottle crate design shown in DPMA register extract
German design No M9 108 980-0004 · German Patent and Trade Mark Office register
Bottle crate design shown in DPMA register extract
German design No M9 208 058-0001 · German Patent and Trade Mark Office register
Delbrouck bottle crate with alleged production stamp 02/2002
photos of original crate and production stamp
Oberland bottle crate with alleged production stamp 07/2014
photos of original crate and production stamp
Oberland bottle crate with alleged production stamp 05/2012
photos of original crate and production stamp
Delbrouck bottle crate with alleged production stamp 02/2014
photos of original crate and production stamp
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed the rejection of its nullity action and argued that earlier bottle-crate designs D1 to D6 deprived the contested RCD of novelty and individual character.
- ›The holder maintained that disclosure of D1 and D3 to D5 had not been proved and that the registered German designs D2(1) to D2(4) and D6 created different overall impressions from the contested bottle crate.
- ›The Board agreed that only D2(1) to D2(4) and D6 had been validly disclosed under Article 7 CDR and found that each of those earlier designs differed in significant shape and structural features from the contested RCD.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the rejection of the invalidity application was confirmed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurA. Pohlmann
- MemberC. Bartos
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2336/2022-3 | 2023-11-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1876/2021-3 | 2022-09-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1694/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1695/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1696/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1699/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1693/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1654/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |