Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-03-10
R0353/2022-3
Contested design: 001945783-0001
Outcome
The appeal is upheld, the contested decision is annulled, the case is remitted to the Invalidity Division, and each party bears its own appeal costs.
Show verbatim operative text(it)
1. Il ricorso è accolto; 2. La decisione impugnata è annullata; 3. Il fascicolo è trasmesso alla Divisione di Annullamento per proseguire con il procedimento di nullità; 4. Ciascuna parte sopporta le proprie spese nel procedimento di ricorso.
CostsEach party bears its own costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Madara Agro Ltd.via PDF extraction
Bulgaria (BG)
1, Madara blvd., j.k. Industrialen, 9700 Shumen, Bulgaria
Represented by
Kostadin Manev
Holder · RCD owner
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Marcello, 73, 35011 Campodarsego (PD), Italia
Represented by
Prior art cited (6)
agricultural machine / subsoiler design filed by Maschio Gaspardo
RCD No 1 140 891-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2009-06-23
reversible tool for agricultural subsoilers and others
EP 1 998 604 · European patent publication · disclosed 2007-10-11
subsoiler shown in YouTube stills and supporting catalog/article material
TerraDig XXS of Vogel & Noot · YouTube / profi.de / INOVEX material · disclosed 2010-11-16
subsoiler shown in YouTube stills and catalog extract
RY 7 Subsoil Cultivator Papadopoulos · YouTube / NICOM-M catalog extract · disclosed 2010-03-24
subsoiler shown in EIMA fair brochure and related screenshots
DSM36 di Dante Macchine · EIMA brochure / YouTube screenshots · disclosed 2010-11-10
Madara Group mounted subsoil cultivator design
Madara Mounted Subsoil Cultivators, Series PM · Madara Group 2009 catalog · disclosed 2009-01-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant relied on six earlier agricultural-machine designs and argued that any differences from the contested subsoiler were function-driven and did not alter the overall impression.
- ›The holder challenged the disclosure and translation of several exhibits, contended that designer freedom was restricted, and said only D1 was suitable for comparison.
- ›The Board held that the first instance had been too strict on identification and disclosure, and that prior design D5 had been validly disclosed and had to be examined on the merits.
- ›The appeal was upheld and the case was remitted so the Invalidity Division could reassess novelty and individual character, taking D5 into account.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberC. Negro
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0422/2023-3 | 2024-03-19 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 60(1) | — | 9 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 8 |
| R0577/2025-3 | 2026-01-21 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 60(1) | — | 7 |
| R1804/2024-3 | 2025-11-19 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0823/2024-3 | 2025-06-18 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 60(1) | — | 7 |
| R0010/2024-3 | 2024-10-02 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 60(1) | — | 7 |
| R2460/2022-3 | 2024-04-15 | Decision annulled | Art 63(2), Art 60(1) | — | 7 |
| R2443/2020-3 | 2023-01-17 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 7 |