DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008044010-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-03-19

R0422/2023-3

Contested design: 008044010-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal upheld (reversal)

The contested decision is annulled, the case is remitted to the Invalidity Division to continue examining the invalidity application, and each party shall bear its own costs of the appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text(fr)

La décision attaquée est annulée ; L’affaire est renvoyée à la division d’annulation afin de poursuivre l’examen de la demande en nullité ; Chaque partie est condamnée à ses propres dépens exposés aux fins de la procédure de recours.

CostsEach party bears its own costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Vaisala Francevia PDF extraction

France (FR)

43 rue de Liège, 75008 Paris, France

Represented by

IPAZ

Holder · RCD owner

B.R.Cvia PDF extraction

France (FR)

Route de Sainte-Poix, 35370 Le Pertre, France

Represented by

SELARL Avoxa Rennes

Prior art cited (1)

Prior use

prior watertight container for the Windcube system

Windcube V2 · WindEurope trade fair, Hamburg · disclosed 2018-09-25

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 8(1)Article 4Article 5Article 6(1)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued the holder registered a container built to its specifications and that an earlier Windcube container had already been publicly disclosed in 2018, defeating novelty and individual character.
  • The holder said the applicant was only its supplier, the disclosure evidence was self-generated and confidential or unproven as public, and the contested design also included non-technical features.
  • The Board rejected the technical-function attack, but admitted the new annexes and found them, together with the earlier materials, sufficient to prove public disclosure of one prior Windcube design in 2018.
  • Because first instance had not yet assessed novelty and individual character after disclosure was established, the Board annulled the decision and remitted the case; each side bears its own appeal costs.

Deciding panel

  • ChairS. Stürmann
  • RapporteurC. Negro
  • MemberE. Fink
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0353/2022-32023-03-10Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 60(1)9
R0577/2025-32026-01-21Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b), Art 60(1)7
R1804/2024-32025-11-19Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b), Art 63(2)7
R0823/2024-32025-06-18Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b), Art 60(1)7
R0010/2024-32024-10-02Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b), Art 60(1)7
R2460/2022-32024-04-15Decision annulledArt 63(2), Art 60(1)7
R1866/2021-32022-09-16Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b), Art 60(1)7
R0050/2017-32021-12-09Decision annulledArt 25(1)(b), Art 63(2)7