Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-03-01
R2415/2018-3
Contested design: 000141999-0005
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 141 999-0005 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 dictated and, in any event, not individually distinct from earlier label-roll disclosures including R5015.
- ›The design holder replied that alternative technically functioning designs existed and that the differences in holes, print marks and proportions preserved validity.
- ›The Board held that the differences from R5015 in print-mark layout, hole count and slightly shorter label size did not alter the overall impression because those features were either technical or of minor visual significance for the informed user.
- ›The appeal was upheld, the first-instance decision was annulled, the contested RCD was declared invalid, and costs were awarded against the holder.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberH. Salmi
- Registrarp.o. M. Chaleva
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2417/2018-3 | 2023-03-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R2416/2018-3 | 2023-03-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R2427/2023-3 | 2024-07-31 | Decision partially annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 6 |
| R1006/2018-3 | 2021-07-01 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 6 |
| R1005/2018-3 | 2021-07-01 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 6 |
| R1004/2018-3 | 2021-06-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 6 |
| R1011/2018-3 | 2021-06-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 6 |
| R1007/2018-3 | 2021-06-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 6 |