Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-10-22
R0321/2020-3
Contested design: 005253069-0003
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs and fees.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs and fees incurred by the design holder.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Framery Oyvia PDF extraction
Finland (FI)
Patamäenkatu 7, FI-33900 Tampere, Finland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Suzhou 3DS Engineering Procurement Construction Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
Taiping Industrial Park, Xiangcheng District, Suzhou 215131, People's Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
telephone booth / telephone box
RCD No 2 393 793-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-01-30
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested telephone-booth design lacked individual character over its earlier published RCD, emphasising the transparent front and back walls, rounded corners and flush door placement.
- ›The design holder did not defend the case before the Invalidity Division and filed no observations on appeal.
- ›The Board accepted disclosure of the earlier RCD but held that several visible differences, especially the door-frame construction and placement of side and roof vents, were sufficient to create a different overall impression on the informed user.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity application remained rejected; the invalidity applicant bears the costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberM. Bra
- Registrarp.o. R. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |