Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-05-24
R1586/2017-3
Contested design: 002963421-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the costs incurred by the design holder.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the fees and costs incurred by the design holder.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
'KUBALA' Sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Daszyńskiego 70c, 43-450 Ustroń, Poland
Holder · RCD owner
FHU Partner Ljajić Milanvia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Dekarska 2, Rusocin, 83-031 Łęgowo, Poland
Prior art cited (3)
trowel float for cladding removal (openwork body, diagonal hole arrangement)
Polish Utility Model No Ru 65977 (fig. 2) · Official Bulletin of the Polish Patent Office · disclosed 2011-03-28
trowel float for cladding removal (openwork body, parallel hole arrangement)
Polish Utility Model No Ru 65977 (fig. 4) · Official Bulletin of the Polish Patent Office · disclosed 2011-03-28
abrasive or tearing tool for construction industry (Polish patent application filed by design holder)
P. 413 914 A1 · Bulletin of the Polish Patent Office (BUP) · disclosed 2017-01-02
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant (KUBALA) appealed the rejection of its invalidity application, arguing the Invalidity Division incorrectly assessed the informed user, designer's freedom, and individual character; it also submitted new evidence (Polish patent application P.413 914) allegedly showing the contested design was purely technical.
- ›The design holder (FHU Partner) defended that the RCD differed from the prior utility model in significant design features (square vs. round holes, elevated surface, different handle shape) and the new patent evidence was inadmissible.
- ›The Board upheld the Invalidity Division's conclusions: the prior utility model was properly disclosed; the new patent evidence (published after the contested RCD filing date) was irrelevant regardless of admissibility; the contested RCD produces a different overall impression through its notably bigger square holes, elevated surface, and distinct handle compared to both embodiments of the utility model.
- ›Appeal dismissed; invalidity applicant ordered to pay costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberC. Rusconi
- RegistrarI. Romero Conrad
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2453/2023-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0056/2020-3 | 2021-04-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2349/2019-3 | 2020-09-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1546/2018-3 | 2019-01-22 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R1826/2025-3 | 2026-04-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0333/2025-3 | 2026-01-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0116/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0115/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |