Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-06-01
R0056/2017-3
Contested design: 002861260-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the design holder is ordered to bear the costs incurred by the invalidity applicant.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs incurred by the invalidity applicant.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
"STEGU" Sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Dworcowa 8, 46-025 Jełowa, Poland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
STONE MASTER SAvia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Dubois 117/119, 93 465 Łódź, Poland
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
set of interior furnishing panels / building blocks / capping elements / covering or cladding elements
Community design No 2 401 406-0001 · EUIPO designs register · disclosed 2014-04-07
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder (STONE MASTER) appealed the Invalidity Division's decision declaring RCD 2 861 260-0001 (ceramic tiles for building) invalid for lack of novelty, arguing the contested design has a Z-shape (not rectangular), its market is saturated reducing the significance of common features, and the informed user is a professional interior designer with elevated expertise.
- ›The invalidity applicant (STEGU) maintained the designs are identical — both are rectangular tiles of two layers with offset second layer imitating weathered brick — and the design holder's undated saturation evidence was inadmissible and in any case did not establish a coherent 'family' of designs.
- ›The Board confirmed the designs are identical under Article 5 CDR: any alleged differences (Z-shape vs. rectangle, perforated vs. creased surface, regular vs. irregular edges, different offset) are either non-apparent from the registered views or immaterial; even under Article 6 CDR the result would be the same given the nearly identical overall impression and the designer's substantial freedom.
- ›Appeal dismissed; design holder bears costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. Margellos
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0181/2025-3 | 2025-05-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 5(2), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2132/2024-3 | 2025-04-09 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 5(2) | — | 5 |
| R0827/2024-3 | 2025-03-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1336/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0797/2024-3 | 2025-01-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1123/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1125/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |