Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-01-14
R0291/2018-3
Contested design: 001384002-0034
Outcome
The contested decision is annulled and the application for a declaration of invalidity of RCD No 1 384 002-0034 is rejected; the invalidity applicant shall bear all fees and costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision and rejects the application for a declaration of invalidity; 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
BOG-FRAN Sp. z o.o., Sp. k.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Rozbrat 10/14 lok. 3, 00-451 Warszawa, Poland
Represented by
Marek Mikosza
Holder · RCD owner
Fabryki Mebli "Forte" S.A.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Biała 1, 07-300 Ostrów Mazowiecka, Poland
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
Copy of page from producer catalogue 'NABYTKU – Novinka 2008 – WHITE' (undated), showing furniture design; printing invoice dated 14 August 2008
Own catalogue of invalidity applicant BOG-FRAN; printing invoice from Rzeszowskie Zakłady Graficzne · disclosed 2008-08-14
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant (BOG-FRAN) sought invalidity of the furniture RCD based on an earlier design shown in its own 2008 product catalogue, supported by a printing invoice and delivery confirmations; the Invalidity Division upheld the application, finding disclosure proven and the designs producing the same overall impression.
- ›The design holder (Forte) appealed, arguing the catalogue was its own applicant's document (not a third-party catalogue), had poor image quality, and the supporting documents (delivery confirmations) were insufficient to prove public disclosure under Article 7(1) CDR; it also relied on a Polish court judgment that rejected the same evidence.
- ›The Board found that an invalidity applicant's own catalogue, unsupported by specific evidence of distribution to specialist circles, is insufficient to prove public disclosure under Article 7(1) CDR; the single delivery confirmation mentioning model WHITE WH-9 similarly did not prove disclosure to the sector.
- ›The appeal was upheld, the contested decision annulled, and the invalidity application rejected for failure to prove disclosure of a prior design; costs awarded to the design holder.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 28(1)(b), Art 7(1) | — | 6 |
| R1845/2023-3 | 2024-12-09 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R2289/2023-3 | 2024-12-09 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R0005/2024-3 | 2024-09-11 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R0353/2022-3 | 2023-03-10 | Decision annulled | Art 28(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2443/2020-3 | 2023-01-17 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1), Art 28(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0050/2017-3 | 2021-12-09 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R0054/2025-3 | 2025-09-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 4 |