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 Oy
Finland (FI)
Patamäenkatu 7, FI-33900 Tampere, Finland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Suzhou 3DS Engineering Procurement Construction Co., Ltd.
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 |