Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-03-05
R2163/2022-3
Contested design: 000222070-0006
Outcome
The contested decision is set aside, the invalidity application is rejected, and the invalidity applicant must bear the holders’ costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die angefochtene Entscheidung wird aufgehoben und der Antrag auf Nichtigkeitserklärung wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Nichtigkeitsantragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaber im Nichtigkeits- und Beschwerdeverfahren.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
SMT GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Ernst-Abbe-Str. 3, 72770 Reutlingen, Deutschland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Gerrit Piesvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Friedenstr. 107-109, 42699 Solingen, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
Paletti 'Abreißprofile 40' profile-bar cross-section shown in Paletti catalog extracts
Paletti Profilsysteme GmbH & Co. KG catalog · disclosed 2001-04-01
European patent publication concerning a profile bar
EP 1 710 452 B1 · European patent publication · disclosed 2008-06-11
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The holders argued that the contested profile-bar design retained individual character and that the Invalidity Division overstated the similarity to the earlier Paletti profile shown in the catalog extracts.
- ›The invalidity applicant maintained that the design lacked individual character and was also excluded by Articles 4(2), 8(1) and 8(2) CDR because the profile features were technically dictated or must-fit.
- ›The Board held that the technical-function and must-fit grounds were not established and that the differences in the central opening, corner cut-outs and groove details created a different overall impression from the earlier profile design.
- ›The contested decision was annulled, the invalidity application was rejected, and costs were awarded against the invalidity applicant.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0878/2022-3 | 2023-02-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2) | — | 8 |
| R1699/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2) | — | 8 |
| R1693/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2) | — | 8 |
| R1696/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2) | — | 8 |
| R1698/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2) | — | 8 |
| R1654/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2) | — | 8 |
| R1694/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2) | — | 8 |
| R1653/2021-3 | 2022-03-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2) | — | 8 |