DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 009192768-0002

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

R0615/2023-3

Contested design: 009192768-0002

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal upheld (reversal)

The Board takes note of the amended views, annuls the contested decision, and remits the case to the examiner for further prosecution 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.

CostsNo costs order

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant appealed the partial refusal of designs No 9 192 768-0002 and -0003, arguing that an Office IT error prevented its representatives from accessing the file and curing the representation deficiencies in time.
  • No opposing private party was involved; this was an ex parte appeal against the examiner's refusal decision in a multiple application.
  • The Board found the initial deficiency notice had been formally sent, but accepted that a technical incident on the Office's side later blocked file access and delayed the applicant's ability to act.
  • Using its discretion to admit the amended views and noting the priority documents were adequate, the Board annulled the refusal and remitted the registration procedure 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