← Back to search
Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-04-02
R0510/2019-3
Contested design: 002748541-0003
CDRAppellant: holder
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
The appeal is dismissed; the design holder is ordered to bear the invalidity applicant's costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs incurred by the invalidity applicant.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
MAR-BUD spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością Budownictwo spółka komandytowavia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Pawła Włodkowica 2C, 03-262 Warszawa, Poland
Holder · RCD owner
FAST DEVELOPMENT.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Kanałowa 35, 40-748 Katowice, Poland
Represented by
Legal grounds invoked
Article 25(1)(b)Article 3(a)Article 4(2)Article 8(1)Article 63
Argument summary
- ›Design holder (appellant) argued the RCD (corrugated coil pipe with radiator fins) could be used in visible applications such as wall radiators and spray coolers, that its wave-like side profile was an aesthetic feature, and that technical function did not dictate all features.
- ›Invalidity applicant (respondent) relied on the licence agreement, test reports and witness statements to show the only proven use was as a non-visible component inside a sealed heat exchanger submerged in water, and that all features — fins, corrugations, pipe shape — were dictated by function.
- ›The Board first examined visibility under Article 4(2) CDR: the only evidenced use was in the heat-exchanger prototype where the RCD was invisible during normal use; the holder's alternative applications were hypothetical without actual evidence. Separately, under Article 8(1) CDR, the Board confirmed all features were solely dictated by technical function (heat transfer, ice prevention, turbulent flow).
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the first-instance invalidation on both non-visibility and technical function grounds was upheld.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberE. Fink
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0568/2019-3 | 2020-04-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 4(2), Art 4(3) | — | 9 |
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2) | — | 7 |
| R0204/2024-3 | 2025-06-04 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2) | — | 7 |
| R0878/2022-3 | 2023-02-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2) | — | 7 |
| R1699/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2) | — | 7 |
| R1693/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2) | — | 7 |
| R1654/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2) | — | 7 |
| R1696/2021-3 | 2022-08-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2) | — | 7 |