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 Akcyjnavia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Konwiktorska 4, 00-217 Warszawa, Poland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Mostostal Siedlce Sp. z o.o. Sp.k.via PDF extraction
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 |