Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-10-30
R2453/2023-3
Contested design: 001084784-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the holder's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Nichtigkeitsantragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin im Nichtigkeits- und Beschwerdeverfahren.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Penny & Giles Controls Limitedvia PDF extraction
United Kingdom (GB)
15 Airfield Road, Christchurch BH23 3TJ, Vereinigtes Königreich
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
elobau GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Zeppelinstr. 44, 88299 Leutkirch, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
older joystick/control-grip design with a trapezoidal pointed head and top-mounted controls
older joystick/control-grip design with side wings and buttons on the head
older control-grip design with a triangular head and four-button diamond arrangement
older control-grip design with a triangular head and four-button diamond arrangement
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant appealed, arguing the contested control-grip design lacked novelty and individual character because joystick ergonomics and control layouts left little design freedom and D1-D4 created the same overall impression.
- ›The holder argued the cited joystick examples showed design diversity, the applicant overstated functional constraints, and each prior design differed visibly in the base, grip, head and button layout.
- ›The Board confirmed that D1-D4 had been disclosed, identified a relatively attentive informed user of control grips, and found the designer's freedom was not materially constrained beyond basic functional requirements.
- ›Comparing each cited design with the contested RCD, the Board found significant differences in the shape of the base, grip and head, and especially in the arrangement and placement of the controls, so the contested design retained individual character and novelty.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity applicant was ordered to bear the holder's costs in both instances.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurC. Bartos
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | human 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0056/2020-3 | 2021-04-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R1546/2018-3 | 2019-01-22 | Decision annulled | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 8 |
| R2422/2022-3 | 2024-01-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0489/2022-3 | 2023-12-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2289/2022-3 | 2023-12-13 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2502/2022-3 | 2023-06-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0878/2022-3 | 2023-02-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2206/2021-3 | 2022-12-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |