Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-03-30
R1338/2019-3
Contested design: 002649301-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the design holder is ordered to reimburse the invalidity applicant's costs in the appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to reimburse the invalidity applicant's costs in the appeal proceedings.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
MOSTOSTAL Spółka Akcyjna
Poland (PL)
ul. Konwiktorska 4, 00-217 Warszawa, Poland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Mostostal Siedlce Sp. z o.o. Sp.k.
Poland (PL)
ul Terespolska 12, 08110 Siedlce, Poland
Represented by
Sylwia Owczarek
Prior art cited (6)
figurative mark of Mostostal Siedlce S.A. logo (variant 1), filed 30 December 1992, registered 3 July 1995
Polish trade mark registration No 85 830 · Polish Patent Office Official Gazette · disclosed 1995-07-03
Sign (variant 2) used on corporate correspondence including letters to Polish Chamber of Steel Construction dated March 2000 and July 2000
corporate stationery / business letters · disclosed 2000-03-20
Sign (variant 3) used in a press advertisement of 11 April 1993
press advertisement · disclosed 1993-04-11
figurative mark filed by applicant
Polish trade mark application (figurative), filed 4 October 1991 (variant 4) · Polish Patent Office · disclosed 1991-10-04
Sign used in a memorandum of 9 April 1996 and reference letter of 6 August 2004
business documents · disclosed 1996-04-09
EU word mark MOSTOSTAL and Polish MOSTOSTAL marks (Classes 6, 11, 19, 35 etc.)
MOSTOSTAL EU word mark and Polish word/figurative marks (Article 25(1)(e) ground) · EUIPO / Polish Patent Office
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Design holder (appellant) argued it had prior rights to the name 'MOSTOSTAL' predating the applicant, that the designer's freedom was limited by the need to use the business name/logo, that minor differences (colour, letter shape) were sufficient to produce a different overall impression, and that a black-and-white earlier design cannot be compared to a colour RCD.
- ›Invalidity applicant (respondent) contended designer freedom for a logo is unlimited, colour differences are not decisive, the historical/prior-rights arguments are relevant only to Article 25(1)(e) and not to the individual character assessment.
- ›The Board upheld the contested decision: designer freedom for logos is unlimited; both designs incorporate the same stylised 'M' followed by 'Mostostal SIEDLCE'; colour and minor stylistic differences were insufficient to produce a different overall impression on the informed user.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the design holder was ordered to pay the applicant's appeal costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarR. Vidal
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0303/2021-3 | 2022-07-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(2) | — | 11 |
| R1357/2021-3 | 2022-06-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R0630/2021-3 | 2022-06-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 9 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1336/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1015/2024-3 | 2024-11-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1719/2023-3 | 2024-06-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2422/2022-3 | 2024-01-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |