Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-03-01
R2414/2018-3
Contested design: 000141999-0004
Outcome
The appeal is upheld, the contested decision is annulled, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's costs and fees.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision; 2. Declares Registered Community design No 141 999-0004 invalid; 3. Orders the design holder to bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
AVERY ZWECKFORM GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Miesbacher Straße 5, 83626 Oberlaindem/Valley, Germany
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Sanford, L.P.via PDF extraction
United States (US)
6655 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, Atlanta, Georgia 30328, United States of America
Represented by
Prior art cited (5)
operating instructions for sheet-cutting machines dated 04/93, containing image of a print mark
disclosed 1993-04-01
affidavit of Mr Utz with label rolls and print marks used since 1999/2003
disclosed 2003-12-10
printing apparatus with bar code sensor
EP 1 718 472 B1 · European Patent Office · disclosed 2006-11-08
tape printing apparatus
EP 09 341 68 B1 · European Patent Office · disclosed 1999-08-11
label roll with yellow backing strip, white labels, oval holes and black print marks
disclosed 2003-12-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the label-roll design was technically driven and in any event lacked individual character over earlier label-roll disclosures, especially the prior design known as R5015.
- ›The design holder maintained that the representation was valid, aesthetic choices remained in the yellow strip, label form and other details, and prior designs did not create the same overall impression.
- ›The Board found that some print-mark and hole features were technical, but that the contested design still failed for lack of individual character because R5015 produced the same overall impression despite differences in label size and print-mark layout.
- ›The appeal was upheld, the first-instance rejection was annulled, the RCD was declared invalid, and the holder was ordered to bear costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberH. Salmi
- Registrarp.o. E. Apaolaza Alm
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1866/2021-3 | 2022-09-16 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R1072/2020-3 | 2021-07-14 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R1070/2020-3 | 2021-07-05 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R2413/2018-3 | 2020-05-15 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R1393/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 6 |
| R1394/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 6 |
| R1395/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 6 |
| R1800/2025-3 | 2026-04-27 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 6 |