Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-11-26
R2491/2020-3
Contested design: 006352332-0002
Outcome
The contested decision is annulled, the case is remitted to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution, and each party bears its own costs and fees in the appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision. 2. Remits the case to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution. 3. Orders each party to bear its own costs and fees in the appeal proceedings.
CostsEach party bears its own costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Wobben Properties GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Borsigstraße 26, 26607 Aurich, Germany
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
TA Towers ApSvia PDF extraction
Denmark (DK)
c/o Thomas Andresen, Skovalléen 19, Dalum, 5250 Odense SV, Denmark
Represented by
Prior art cited (9)
tubular tower and construction procedure
WO 2010/055535 A1 · WIPO · disclosed 2010-05-20
method for the production of wind turbine tower segments and wind turbine tower
WO 2012/156414 A2 · WIPO · disclosed 2012-11-22
flange segment for a wind turbine steel tower segment and method
DE 102017106201 A1 · Germany · disclosed 2018-09-27
wind turbine steel tower section for a wind turbine tower and method of fabrication
DE 102017116872 A1 · Germany · disclosed 2019-01-31
wind turbine steel tower ring segment and method
DE 102017116873 A1 · Germany · disclosed 2019-01-31
screenshots from Flickr and YouTube
Flickr; YouTube
EP 1974112 B1 · European Patent Office · disclosed 2008-10-01
EP 2525079 A1 · European Patent Office · disclosed 2012-11-21
CN 106438212B; CN 105484945B · China
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder argued that only the registered representations mattered, D1 showed merely a preform, and differences in bends, angles, panels, holes and flaps gave the contested RCD novelty and individual character.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that the product context and patent material were relevant, the contested features were technically driven, and the RCD lacked at least individual character over the cited prior art.
- ›Following the General Court’s annulment of the Board’s 11 February 2022 decision on Article 6, the Board held that only the remaining invalidity grounds and prior designs still required examination.
- ›The Board refused suspension, annulled the contested decision, remitted the case to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution, and ordered each party to bear its own appeal costs and fees.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberH. Salmi
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2493/2020-3 | 2024-11-26 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 60(1), Art 91(2), Art 61(6) | — | 9 |
| R0029/2022-3 | 2025-04-16 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 60(1), Art 61(6) | — | 7 |
| R0102/2023-3 | 2024-11-08 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 60(1) | — | 5 |
| R0577/2025-3 | 2026-01-21 | Decision annulled | Art 60(1) | — | 4 |
| R1158/2024-3 | 2025-06-23 | Decision confirmed | Art 91(2) | — | 4 |
| R1156/2024-3 | 2025-06-23 | Decision confirmed | Art 91(2) | — | 4 |
| R1157/2024-3 | 2025-06-23 | Decision confirmed | Art 91(2) | — | 4 |
| R0823/2024-3 | 2025-06-18 | Decision annulled | Art 60(1) | — | 4 |