Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-04-08
R0338/2020-3
Contested design: 005253069-0001
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, 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 boxes
RCD No 2 393 793-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-01-30
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, contending that the contested telephone-booth design reproduced the dominant visual features of the earlier RCD for telephone boxes, including the transparent front and back walls, rounded framing and flush door placement.
- ›The design holder did not file observations in reply.
- ›The Board agreed with the Invalidity Division that, despite common basic booth features, the differing treatment of the booth frame, door frame and glass made the earlier booth appear more robust while the contested design appeared more minimalist and delicate, creating a different overall impression.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the invalidity application remained rejected and the invalidity applicant had to bear costs and fees.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- 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 |