Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-04-08
R0339/2020-3
Contested design: 005253069-0002
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, arguing that the second contested telephone-booth design also reproduced the decisive appearance of its earlier registered booth design and lacked individual character.
- ›The design holder did not file observations in reply.
- ›The Board again held that the differences in the booth frame, the single versus double door framing, and the shape and placement of the glazing were sufficient to make the contested design look more minimalist and fragile than the earlier booth, so the informed user would receive a different overall impression.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity applicant was ordered 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 |