Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-11-08
R0102/2023-3
Contested design: 004031201-0004
Outcome
The contested decision is set aside, the case is remitted to the Invalidity Division for continuation of the invalidity proceedings, each party bears its own appeal costs, and the appeal fee is reimbursed.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die angefochtene Entscheidung wird aufgehoben. 2. Die Sache wird zur Fortsetzung des Nichtigkeitsverfahrens an die Nichtigkeitsabteilung zurückverwiesen. 3. Beide Parteien tragen die ihnen im Beschwerdeverfahren entstandenen Kosten selbst. 4. Die Beschwerdegebühr wird zurückerstattet.
CostsEach party bears its own costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
B.K.Licht GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Herzog-Johann-Straße 4 a, 81245 München, Deutschland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
DecoTrend GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Zur Drehscheibe 5, 92637 Weiden, Deutschland
Prior art cited (2)
patent disclosure showing a star / Annaberger folding star
CH 132 939 · Eidgenössisches Amt für Geistiges Eigentum · disclosed 1929-07-16
US patent disclosure showing a star / Annaberger folding star
1 653 206 · United States Patent Office · disclosed 1927-03-19
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed the rejection of its invalidity application, arguing that the Division wrongly assessed D1 and D2 together and relied on material beyond the pleaded prior designs.
- ›The holder asked for dismissal of the appeal and argued that the cited patent documents had to be assessed as filed, not reduced to figure 1 alone.
- ›The Board held that the invalidity request fixed the subject matter of the case and that the comparison had to focus on the cited prior-design images, especially figure 1 of D1 and D2.
- ›Because the Division relied on undisclosed real-product samples and did not show a proper comparison of the pleaded prior designs with the contested design, the decision contained a serious procedural defect.
- ›The appeal was upheld, the decision was set aside, and the case was remitted to the Invalidity Division; each party bears its own appeal costs and the appeal fee is reimbursed.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurC. Bartos
- MemberA. Pohlmann
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0029/2022-3 | 2025-04-16 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 60(1) | — | 5 |
| R2493/2020-3 | 2024-11-26 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 60(1) | — | 5 |
| R2491/2020-3 | 2024-11-26 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 60(1) | — | 5 |
| R0577/2025-3 | 2026-01-21 | Decision annulled | Art 60(1) | — | 4 |
| R0823/2024-3 | 2025-06-18 | Decision annulled | Art 60(1) | — | 4 |
| R0120/2024-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 60(1) | — | 4 |
| R0122/2024-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 60(1) | — | 4 |
| R0010/2024-3 | 2024-10-02 | Decision annulled | Art 60(1) | — | 4 |