R0595/2020-3

• ›The design holder argued that the prior-design evidence from the Czech catalogue and invoices was unreliable, insufficient to prove disclosure, and too poor in quality to permit a meaningful comparison; it also invoked its own independent creation and parallel Polish court proceedings.
• ›The invalidity applicant maintained that the prior catalogue design “skrin 2D WH9” had been printed and marketed in 2008 and that the contested wardrobe differed only in minor details such as the number of horizontal lines on the doors.
• ›The Board found the catalogue images sufficiently clear, accepted disclosure of the prior design before the 2013 filing date, and held that the dominant front-door arrangement, broad frame, white colour and sectioning lines produced the same overall impression; the differences in exact number of lines, handle position and section shape were minor variations.
• ›The appeal was dismissed and the contested RCD remained invalid; the design holder bears the costs of both proceedings.

• ChairG. Humphreys
• RapporteurA. Szanyi Felkl
• MemberM. Bra
• RegistrarH. Dijkema

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