DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 009192768-0001

Other appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-08-27

R0615/2023-3

Contested design: 009192768-0001

Appellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal upheld (reversal)

The Board accepted the amended views, annulled the refusal decision, and remitted the case for continuation of the registration procedure.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Takes note of the amended views No 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 for Community design No 9 192 768-0002, and the amended views No 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 for Community design No 9 192 768-0003. 2. Annuls the contested decision. 3. Remits the case to the examiner for further prosecution of the registration procedure.

CostsNot specified

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Digital distillery LLCvia PDF extraction

United States (US)

1419 Murray Drive, 64116 North Kansas City, United States

Represented by

HGF B.V.

Holder · RCD owner

No opposing holder — Other appeal · Board of Appeal.

Legal grounds invoked

Article 4(1)(c)Article 46(3)Article 10(4)Article 60(1)Article 63(2)

Argument summary

  • The applicant appealed the refusal of designs 0002 and 0003, arguing an Office-side IT error prevented access to the deficiency notice and timely correction of the views and priority documents.
  • There was no opposing private party; the case was ex parte, and the Office record showed the deficiencies had not been remedied within the original time limit.
  • The Board found the applicant’s representatives had made substantial efforts to access the file, a technical incident delayed that access, and the applicant should be given the benefit of the doubt.
  • Using its discretion, the Board admitted the amended replacement views and noted that the later-filed priority documents were sufficient for the examiner to accept the priority claim.
  • The appeal was upheld, the contested decision was annulled, and the case was remitted for further prosecution.

Deciding panel

  • ChairS. Stürmann
  • RapporteurH. Salmi
  • MemberC. Negro
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0615/2023-32024-08-27Decision annulledArt 63(2)5
R0615/2023-32024-08-27Decision annulledArt 63(2)5
R2353/2023-32024-03-20Decision annulledArt 63(2)5
R2353/2023-32024-03-20Decision annulledArt 63(2)5
R2353/2023-32024-03-20Decision annulledArt 63(2)5
R2353/2023-32024-03-20Decision annulledArt 63(2)5
R0837/2020-32021-11-30Decision annulledArt 63(2)5
R0116/2025-32025-07-14Decision confirmedArt 63(2)4