Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-06-04
R0204/2024-3
Contested design: 002452904-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs for both instances, fixed at EUR 900.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal. 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings, which are fixed in the amount of EUR 900.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €900
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Rodon International BVvia PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
Weeresteinstraat 138, 2181GD Hillegom, Netherlands
Represented by
Lambert Heinrich Eduard Drenthe
Holder · RCD owner
Meyn Beheer B.V.via PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
Westeinde 6, 1511 MA Oostzaan, Netherlands
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
'2011 Weigher' / Meyn's new line weigher shown in a Poultry World article, with undated pictures submitted as alleged enlarged views
https://www.poultryworld.net/poultry/new-line-weigher-for-sorting-lines:// · Poultry World weblog · disclosed 2011-11-08
Screenshots from a YouTube video submitted on appeal as additional disclosure evidence for a prior weighing device
YouTube video screenshots · YouTube
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant appealed, arguing the contested weighing shackle was an invisible component part, wholly function-driven, mechanically constrained, and lacking individual character over the earlier '2011 Weigher'.
- ›The holder responded that the shackle remains visible in normal use, is not a component part of the alleged complex product, design choices existed, and the disclosure evidence was insufficient and partly late.
- ›The Board held the applicant had not proved the conditions for Articles 4(2), 8(1), or 8(2), and that the additional appeal evidence did not cure the evidential gaps identified by the Invalidity Division.
- ›The Board found the alleged prior design was not disclosed with sufficient clarity under Article 7(1), so novelty and individual character could not be assessed on that basis.
- ›The contested decision was confirmed, the invalidity application remained rejected in full, and the appeal was dismissed with costs against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberA. Pohlmann
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2) | — | 11 |
| R0878/2022-3 | 2023-02-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2) | — | 11 |
| R0029/2018-3 | 2024-09-09 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 8(2) | — | 9 |
| R1698/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2) | — | 9 |
| R1694/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2) | — | 9 |
| R1693/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2) | — | 9 |
| R1696/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2) | — | 9 |
| R1699/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 8(2) | — | 9 |