000108309

• ›Applicant (Wobben) argued the two-bend wind turbine tower segment design lacks novelty and individual character over prior designs D1–D6 (patent disclosures and Flickr photographs); all features are solely technically dictated (Art. 8(1)) and interconnected (Art. 8(2)); the design represents an invisible component of a complex product (Art. 4(2)).
• ›Holder (TA Towers) argued no prior design produces the same overall impression; Art. 4(2) and 8(2) do not apply since the design is visible from multiple sides; Art. 8(1) does not apply as the two-bend configuration reflects discretionary aesthetic choices; the affidavit from applicant's employee has low probative value; referred to a final Hamburg OLG judgment upholding the same design.
• ›The Division rejected Art. 4(2), 8(1) and 8(2) grounds as unsubstantiated; found prior designs D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 do not produce the same overall impression as the contested two-bend design (consistent with General Court T-202/22 findings); found D6 (Lagerwey Flickr, four-bend cylindrical segment) does produce the same overall impression — both are cylindrical segments with parallel bends, differing only in bend count and fixing elements, which are insufficient distinctions.
• ›Application upheld solely on Art. 6 CDR based on prior design D6; contested design declared invalid; holder bears costs of EUR 750; case was a remittal from the Third Board of Appeal following GC judgment T-202/22.

• MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
• MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
• MemberCarlos MATEO PÉREZ

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.