Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-11-26
R2493/2020-3
Contested design: 006352332-0001
Outcome
The appeal is upheld, 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 (10)
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
Flanschsegment für ein Windenergieanlagen-Stahlturmringsegment und Verfahren
DE 102017106201 A1 · Germany · disclosed 2018-09-27
Windenergieanlagen-Stahlturmabschnitt für einen Windenergieanlagen-Turm und Verfahren zur Herstellung
DE 102017116872 A1 · Germany · disclosed 2019-01-31
Windenergieanlagen-Stahlturmringsegment und Verfahren
DE 102017116873 A1 · Germany · disclosed 2019-01-31
screenshots from Flickr and YouTube
Flickr and YouTube screenshots · Flickr; YouTube
EP 1974112 B1 · disclosed 2008-10-01
EP 2525079 A1 · disclosed 2012-11-21
CN 106438212B · China · disclosed 2017-02-22
CN 105484945B · China · disclosed 2016-04-13
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed, arguing the Invalidity Division wrongly relied on the prior patent design, ignored visible differences in shape, bends, holes and flaps, and misapplied the technical-function, visibility and interconnection grounds.
- ›The invalidity applicant sought dismissal, maintaining the contested RCD lacked novelty or at least individual character, that technical joining features deserved little weight, and that suspension was unwarranted.
- ›After the General Court annulled the Board's 2022 dismissal decision on the Article 6 comparison with WO 2010/055535 A1, the Board rejected the holder's request to suspend these appeal proceedings.
- ›The Board held the remaining invalidity grounds and prior designs had not been examined by the Invalidity Division and should be assessed there in the first instance, with the General Court's findings binding as to D1.
- ›The appeal was allowed, the contested decision annulled, the case remitted for further prosecution, and each party ordered to bear its own appeal costs.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2491/2020-3 | 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 |