Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-04-03
R0542/2022-3
Contested design: 002691410-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Nichtigkeitsantragstellerin trägt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und Beschwerdeverfahrens.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
DIEWE Wheels GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Industriestraße 21, 86438 Kissing, Deutschland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Mercedes-Benz Group AGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Mercedesstr. 120, 70372 Stuttgart, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
Audi five-arm semi-Y wheel design
Audi Q3 catalog / Audi Life Kundenmagazin 02/2011 · Audi catalog and customer magazine · disclosed 2011-06-01
Nissan wheel shown in article and 2014 catalog
Nissan Qashqai 2014 wheel design · auto-motor-und-sport.de and Nissan catalog · disclosed 2014-02-14
wheel shown in YouTube product video
Oxxo Oberon 5 Silver · YouTube video screenshot · disclosed 2014-12-10
Daimler wheel design owned by the same proprietor
RCD No 002351247-0003 · EUIPO eSearch / Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-02-16
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested vehicle wheel lacked novelty and individual character over Audi, Nissan, Oxxo and Daimler wheel designs with the same double-spoke concept.
- ›The holder answered that D1 to D3 created different overall impressions and that D4 fell within the Article 7(2) grace period because it was its own earlier design.
- ›The Board agreed that D1 to D3 differed materially in spoke geometry and overall impression, and that D4 could not be used because its disclosure was protected by the grace period.
- ›The appeal failed and costs were awarded against the invalidity applicant.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurS. Stürmann
- MemberA. Pohlmann
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 5(1)(b), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R0054/2025-3 | 2025-09-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 5(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2089/2024-3 | 2025-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2328/2024-3 | 2025-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2336/2022-3 | 2023-11-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 7(2) | — | 7 |
| R0598/2022-3 | 2023-06-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 5(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0599/2022-3 | 2023-06-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 5(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1562/2022-3 | 2023-05-31 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 7(2) | — | 7 |