Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-08-01
R1784/2022-3
Contested design: 007776299-0001
Outcome
The request for partial surrender is rejected; the contested decision is set aside, the invalidity application is rejected, and the invalidity applicant bears the costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Der Antrag auf Teilverzicht wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die angefochtene Entscheidung wird aufgehoben und der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung zurückgewiesen. 3. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten des Nichtigkeits- und des Beschwerdeverfahrens.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Lübbering Abrollsysteme GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Hans-Böckler-Straße 9, 33442 Herzebrock-Clarholz, Deutschland
Holder · RCD owner
Steppeler GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Sundernstr.6, 33442 Herzebrock-Clarholz, Deutschland
Prior art cited (2)
older 'Roll Profi Original' cable drum unwinder, view 1
YouTube screenshot · YouTube · disclosed 2018-01-10
older 'Roll Profi Original' cable drum unwinder, view 2
www.facebook.com/luebering.rollprofi screenshot · Facebook · disclosed 2017-03-07
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The holder appealed, arguing the contested cable-drum unwinder created a different overall impression through its color contrast, finger recesses, side-panel profiling, and limited designer freedom.
- ›The invalidity applicant said the appeal case was late, designer freedom was broad, the asserted differences were technical or marginal, and the partial-surrender request was inadmissible and ineffective.
- ›The Board admitted the appeal arguments, rejected the partial surrender because it changed the design's identity, and limited the earlier disclosure to the accepted pre-filing views proved by Annexes 5 and 9.
- ›It found the side-panel openings, wave-shaped grip recesses, profiling, upper-edge shape, and attachment details gave the contested design a different overall impression, so the invalidity application had to be rejected.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurE. Fink
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1936/2023-3 | 2024-04-09 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2238/2022-3 | 2024-01-15 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0605/2021-3 | 2022-12-13 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1223/2021-3 | 2022-11-23 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1221/2021-3 | 2022-11-23 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1220/2021-3 | 2022-06-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1222/2021-3 | 2022-06-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0024/2021-3 | 2022-03-16 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |