Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-04-19
R0678/2020-3
Contested design: 005324704-0002
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's costs and fees, fixed at EUR 1,250.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings; 3. Fixes the costs to be paid by the design holder to the invalidity applicant for the invalidity and the appeal proceedings at EUR 1 250.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €1,250
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
DXRacer Germany GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Maßbrucher Weg 25, Lemgo, Germany
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Peng Wuvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
Room A409, No.1951, Duhui Road, Minhang District, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
gaming armchair design shown in posts
DXRacer Germany GmbH Facebook page · Facebook · disclosed 2016-06-17
gaming armchair design shown in posts
DXRacer Germany GmbH Facebook page · Facebook · disclosed 2016-06-28
gaming armchair design shown in posts
DXRacer Germany GmbH Facebook page · Facebook · disclosed 2016-11-18
same gaming armchair shown on archived website
www.dxracer-germany.de snapshot · Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2017-06-06
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed the invalidation of its gaming-armchair design, arguing that he had not been properly heard at first instance, that the prior design was not clearly identified, and that the cited earlier chair differed in pillows, stripes, armrests and proportions.
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the appeal was inadmissible, that disclosure had been proven through Facebook posts and an archived website, and that the remaining differences were accessories or minor details.
- ›The Board rejected the right-to-be-heard complaint because the holder had been notified of the invalidity action through his earlier representative, confirmed disclosure of the prior chair, and held that the common structure and very similar overall appearance outweighed the differences relied on by the holder.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the RCD remained invalid and EUR 1,250 in costs and fees were fixed against the design holder.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberC. Negro
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0181/2025-3 | 2025-05-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0827/2024-3 | 2025-03-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1336/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0797/2024-3 | 2025-01-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1123/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1125/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1124/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1015/2024-3 | 2024-11-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |