DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000333315-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2018-06-01

R1883/2017-3

Contested design: 000333315-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal inadmissible

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible and the appellant is ordered to bear the fees and costs of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text

1 Rejects the appeal as inadmissible; 2 Orders the appellant to bear the fees and costs incurred by the respondent in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Jarosław Gawinvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Wręczycka 41, PL-42-200 Częstochowa, Poland

Represented by

Anna Korbela

Holder · RCD owner

KAEM Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością Sp. K.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Rzemieślnicza 14, PL-62081 Baranowo, Poland

Represented by

CHMURA & WSPÓLNICY

Legal grounds invoked

Article 57Article 56Article 58Article 67Article 63(2)Article 35Article 70(1)

Argument summary

  • Appellant (invalidity applicant) appealed the first-instance rejection of its invalidity application but failed to submit a written statement of grounds within the four-month statutory time limit under Article 57 CDR; files in the User Area were saved as drafts only.
  • The design holder (respondent) requested dismissal on the ground that no statement of grounds was duly submitted, as the documents were clearly marked as drafts.
  • The Board found that the appellant's representative saved the PDF in the User Area preview but never submitted it; the IT log confirmed no actual submission. The argument that 'DRAFT' was misunderstood was rejected, and no restitutio in integrum had been requested.
  • The appeal was declared inadmissible for failure to file a written statement of grounds within the mandatory time limit; the appellant was ordered to bear costs.

Deciding panel

  • ChairTh. M. Margellos
  • RapporteurE. Fink
  • MemberC. Bartos
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R2384/2023-32024-01-24Appeal inadmissibleArt 35(1)5
R2945/2019-32020-08-14Appeal inadmissibleArt 35(1)5
R1101/2024-32024-11-13Closed without deciding on the meritsArt 35(1)4
R1172/2022-32022-12-02Appeal inadmissibleArt 35(1)3
R1171/2022-32022-11-30Appeal inadmissibleArt 35(1)3
R2022/2021-32022-06-21Appeal inadmissibleArt 35(1)3
R0365/2021-32021-06-22Appeal inadmissibleArt 35(1)3
R0658/2020-32020-08-24Appeal inadmissibleArt 35(1)3