Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-03-01
R2417/2018-3
Contested design: 000141999-0006
Outcome
The contested decision is annulled, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant’s costs in both instances.
Show verbatim operative text
Annuls the contested decision; Declares Registered Community design No 141 999 0006 invalid; 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 (4)
rectangular printer labels on a backing strip with oval holes and black print marks
Avery label roll R5015 · Annex 8 affidavit and supporting production records · disclosed 2003-12-10
printer labels on a backing strip used as part of the same label-roll family
Avery label roll 8853 · Annex 8 affidavit · disclosed 1999-01-01
operating instructions for sheet-cutting machines showing a print mark feature
operating instructions dated 04/93 · disclosed 1993-04-01
printing apparatus with bar code sensor showing die-cut labels on backing material
EP 1 718 472 B1 · European patent publication · disclosed 2006-11-08
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the label-roll design was not a valid design, lacked novelty and individual character, and consisted of features dictated by technical function.
- ›The design holder disputed the admissibility and probative value of the Avery label-roll evidence and maintained that the contested RCD created a different overall impression.
- ›The Board found prior disclosure of the Avery R5015 label roll proven and held that the shared strip, labels, holes and print-mark configuration produced the same overall impression on the informed user.
- ›The appeal was upheld, the first-instance rejection was annulled, and the contested RCD was declared invalid.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberH. Salmi
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2415/2018-3 | 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 |