DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003304021-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-03-15

R1275/2020-3

Contested design: 003304021-0001

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicants' fees and costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the fees and costs incurred by the invalidity applicants.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Piotr Siwekvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Bysewska 30, 80298 Gdańsk, Poland

Represented by

Wojciech Gierszewski

Holder · RCD owner

Domator24.com Pawel Nowakvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Dekoracyjna 8, 65-155 Zielona Góra, Poland

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureD1

gaming chair

Amazon listing 'DXRacer Formula Series DOH/FD01/NR Office Chair' · Amazon · disclosed 2014-03-18

Web disclosureD2

DXRacer FE08NB PC Gaming Chair

gameaccessoriesguide.com article 'What is the Best PC/Desk Gaming Chair 2015?' · gameaccessoriesguide.com · disclosed 2014-11-09

Web disclosureD3

gaming chair

Amazon listing 'DXRacer FH08/NO Black Orange Racing Bucket Seat' · Amazon · disclosed 2014-03-14

Web disclosureD4

gaming chair

Amazon listing 'Merax High-back Ergonomic Pu Leather Office Chair' · Amazon · disclosed 2015-03-26

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5Article 6Article 7(1)Article 70(1)

Argument summary

  • The design holder appealed the invalidation of its gaming-chair design, arguing that the internet article used for disclosure of D2 was unreliable and that the bucket-seat shape was standard in the sector, so the informed user would focus on surface ornamentation differences.
  • The invalidity applicants maintained that D2 had been disclosed before the filing date and that the contested design shared the same dominant shape, cushions and arrangement as the earlier gaming chair.
  • The Board accepted D2 as prior art, found that the common bucket-seat structure, winged backrest, T-shaped armrests, star base and neck/lumbar pillows dominated the overall impression, and rejected the saturation claim for lack of adequate evidence.
  • The appeal was dismissed; the contested RCD remained invalid for lack of individual character and the design holder was ordered to bear costs.

Deciding panel

  • ChairTh. M. Margellos
  • RapporteurH. Salmi
  • MemberC. Negro
  • Registrarp.o. APAOLAZA ALM,Eva

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
R1275/2020-3 — EUIPO design Board of Appeal decision · DesignVerdict