Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-09-25
R1499/2022-3
Contested design: 000322557-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the applicant must bear the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerde- verfahrens.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
DJO, LLCvia PDF extraction
United States (US)
5919 Sea Otter Place, Suite #200, 92010 Carlsbad, Vereinigte Staaten
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Hallufix AGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Tulbeckstr. 32, 80339 München, Deutschland
Prior art cited (1)
Patent publication showing a hallux-valgus splint / orthopaedic toe-correction device relied on for technical-function and prior-disclosure arguments
EP 1 688 106 B1 · European patent publication · disclosed 2006-08-09
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed only on the Article 8(1) CDR ground, arguing that every visible feature of the hallux-valgus splint was chosen solely for technical reasons and relying on the patent publication, website materials and A.K.’s statement.
- ›The holders responded that the specific shapes of the straps, joint, slots and pelotte were not technically inevitable, pointed to alternative designs and design awards, and challenged the neutrality and weight of the applicant’s added evidence.
- ›The Board held that the applicant had not proved that all features of the concrete appearance were exclusively dictated by technical function: the record showed technical purpose, but not that the chosen forms, materials and colours were technically inevitable.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the Board left the unappealed novelty and individual-character findings untouched and ordered the applicant to bear costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberA. Pohlmann
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish (en) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0494/2023-3 | 2024-03-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1) | — | 5 |
| R0862/2023-3 | 2024-02-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1) | — | 5 |
| R0861/2023-3 | 2024-02-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1) | — | 5 |
| R2289/2022-3 | 2023-12-13 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1) | — | 5 |
| R2068/2019-3 | 2023-06-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1) | — | 5 |
| R0878/2022-3 | 2023-02-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1) | — | 5 |
| R0485/2021-3 | 2022-09-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1) | — | 5 |
| R1695/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1) | — | 5 |