Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-03-01
R2416/2018-3
Contested design: 000141999-0008
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 141 999-0008 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 printer-label-roll design was technically dictated and lacked individual character over prior label-roll disclosures, especially R5015.
- ›The design holder insisted that alternative functioning designs existed and that the size and print-mark differences preserved a different overall impression.
- ›The Board found that the contested roll and R5015 shared the core visible features of yellow strip, plain white labels, oval holes and cardboard roll, while the continuous print marks and different label proportions were technically linked or visually minor.
- ›The appeal was upheld, the first-instance rejection was annulled, the contested RCD was declared invalid, and the holder was ordered to bear costs.
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 |
| R2415/2018-3 | 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 |