DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003562982-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-07-23

R2906/2019-3

Contested design: 003562982-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the design holder's costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Dismisses the appeal; 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

ZAKŁADY MIĘSNE SILESIAvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Opolska 22, 40-084 Katowice, Poland

Represented by

Iwona Góral

Holder · RCD owner

Grzegorz Wojdakvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Izabelińska 23a, 05-126 Aleksandrów, Poland

Prior art cited (5)

National designD1

Smoked sausage

Polish industrial design Wp-7413 · Polish Patent Office · disclosed 2005-04-29

Trade markD2

Czas na grill (Polish trade mark showing sausage)

R.289583 · Patent Office of the Republic of Poland · disclosed 2015-02-05

Trade mark⚠ rejected as evidence

Grill star (Polish trade mark)

R.141412 · Patent Office of the Republic of Poland · disclosed 1999-05-25

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Grill season is open (sausages image)

www.expressilustrowany.pl · www.expressilustrowany.pl · disclosed 2015-05-02

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Grill sausage image

http://kotlet.tv · http://kotlet.tv

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5Article 6Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • Applicant/appellant claimed the contested RCD (sausage with grill marks/cuts) lacked novelty and individual character over prior Polish design D1, trade mark D2, and various web disclosures; also argued that no product matching the contested RCD's appearance exists on the market, making novelty/individual character assessment impossible.
  • Design holder argued differences in the designs were material, that many prior items were inadmissible or inadequately evidenced, and that the contested RCD showed unique cuts forming straight parallel lines distinct from the prior art.
  • The Board confirmed disclosure for D1 and D2 only; rejected the argument that the RCD must correspond to an actual marketable product; found that the contested RCD (longer, thinner, distinct grill marks) produces a clearly different overall impression from D1 and D2, which are shorter, thicker, and more curved with different cut shapes.
  • Appeal dismissed; contested decision confirmed; the contested RCD possesses individual character and is also novel a fortiori.

Deciding panel

  • ChairTh. M. Margellos
  • RapporteurC. Negro
  • MemberA. Szanyi Felkl
  • Registrarp.o. M. Chaleva

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0181/2025-32025-05-27Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0827/2024-32025-03-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1336/2024-32025-03-03Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0797/2024-32025-01-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1123/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1125/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1124/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1015/2024-32024-11-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5