Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-11-14
R0256/2023-3
Contested design: 001783523-0002
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant must reimburse the holder’s costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings, fixed at EUR 900.
Show verbatim operative text(fr)
1. Le recours est rejeté; 2. La demanderesse en nullité devra supporter les frais exposés par la titulaire du dessin ou modèle contesté dans le cadre des procédures de nullité et de recours, lesquels sont fixés à 900 EUR.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €900
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Remoran Oyvia PDF extraction
Finland (FI)
Harventajankuja 3, 24130 Salo, Finlande
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Watt and Seavia PDF extraction
France (FR)
4, rue Marc Seguin, 17000 La Rochelle, France
Represented by
Prior art cited (7)
hydrogenerator prototype
Sail-world.com article · Sail-world.com · disclosed 2008-10-28
hydrogenerator prototype
Dailymotion video · Dailymotion
hydrogenerator prototype
Course au large no 37 · Course au large magazine
Watt & Sea hydrogenerator
Calameo brochures · Calameo · disclosed 2009-10-09
deployable wing tip vortex turbine
US Patent No 4 917 332 · United States patent publication · disclosed 1990-04-17
1967 doctoral thesis on wing-tip turbine effects
doctoral thesis
NASA wing-tip vortex energy recovery study
NASA technical document no 2468 · NASA
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested hydrogenerator lacked novelty and individual character over seven earlier disclosures D1 to D7, especially the internet and brochure prototypes D1 to D4.
- ›The holder replied that the cited materials were confidential or from other sectors, that several were not properly disclosed, and that the contested design’s mast shape created a distinct overall impression.
- ›The Board limited the appeal to individual character, treated D1 to D4 as the same earlier prototype, disregarded D2 as inadmissible, and assessed the earlier designs individually rather than in combination.
- ›It found that the mast shape and visible upper-part differences were sufficient to distinguish the contested design from D3, D4 and D5, so the appeal was rejected.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberC. Negro
- RegistrarE. Apaolaza Alm
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0116/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0115/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2453/2023-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0952/2021-3 | 2024-09-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2140/2023-3 | 2024-08-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2585/2023-3 | 2024-08-06 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1745/2023-3 | 2024-06-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |