Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-12-11
R0311/2019-3
Contested design: 002739482-0003
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 costs incurred by the design holder.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
4-Shisha GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Im Hesselbruch 2, 45356 Essen, Germany
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
nextro GmbHvia PDF extraction
Austria (AT)
Bahnhof-Umgebung 17a, 6170 Zirl, Austria
Prior art cited (3)
hookah (pistol-shaped) published on Facebook on 17 October 2014 by Mr 'Vincent Chinahookah Wang'
Facebook (alleged) · disclosed 2014-10-17
hookah (pistol-shaped) published on Facebook on 2 June 2015 by Mr 'Vincent Chinahookah Wang'
Facebook (alleged) · disclosed 2015-06-02
gas-operated pistol (Desert Eagle), published 28 October 1986; also Wikipedia disclosure of design in 1985
US Patent No 4,619,184 · US Patent Office; Wikipedia · disclosed 1985-01-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant (4-Shisha) appealed the rejection of its invalidity application, arguing that Facebook screenshots showing hookah designs D1 and D2 constituted valid prior art disclosures, and relying on a new affidavit from the NINGBO Instagram account manager (Mr 'Vincent Chinahookah Wang') and submitting a new prior design D3 (Desert Eagle pistol).
- ›The design holder (nextro) maintained that the Facebook evidence was inadmissible and unreliable, that MOB Hookah had disclosed the contested design to nextro in 2014 and thus the applicant had copied it, and that D3 produced a different overall impression.
- ›The Board upheld the rejection: the screenshots lacked URLs, source information, and product details sufficient to prove public disclosure under Article 7(1) CDR; the new affidavit from Mr Wang did not link the Instagram images to D1/D2 and was insufficient on its own; D3 and related new prior designs introduced belatedly were inadmissible under Article 63(2) CDR; the disclosed images of D1 and D2 did not show sufficient detail to allow comparison.
- ›The appeal is dismissed; the invalidity application is confirmed rejected.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurM. Bra
- MemberG. Humphreys
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2453/2023-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0952/2021-3 | 2024-09-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2140/2023-3 | 2024-08-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2585/2023-3 | 2024-08-06 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1745/2023-3 | 2024-06-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |