Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-06-30
R1856/2020-3
Contested design: 003850601-0019
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder’s costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
SC GOLD GLASS SRLvia PDF extraction
Romania (RO)
Str. Lt. Col. Dumitru Papazoglu, Nr. 60, Et.2, Ap. 10, Sector 3, 031203 Bucharest, Romania
Holder · RCD owner
SEMIR RAAD MAROKIvia PDF extraction
Romania (RO)
str. Faurei nr. 5, bloc C9, sc. C, ap. 82, Bucuresti, Romania
Represented by
Claudia Monica Frisch
Prior art cited (2)
Romanian product page for bowl No 976
http://goldglass.ro · goldglass.ro · disclosed 2016-06-14
Catalogues, invoices and photos allegedly showing the same bowl before filing and at international glass fairs
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing that an identical bowl had been sold long before filing and that invoices, catalogues, photos and website material proved prior disclosure and lack of novelty and individual character.
- ›The design holder replied that the asserted prior design was not shown by solid, objective evidence and that untranslated or self-originating web material could not establish disclosure under Article 7 CDR.
- ›The Board found that the links, screenshot from the applicant’s Romanian website and the additional supporting material did not establish effective public disclosure of the prior design before the filing date beyond doubt.
- ›Because disclosure was not proven, the Board did not examine novelty or individual character and dismissed the appeal with costs against the invalidity applicant.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberC. Bartos
- RegistrarR. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0538/2025-3 | 2025-09-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0536/2025-3 | 2025-09-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0363/2021-3 | 2022-07-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2063/2021-3 | 2022-07-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0051/2017-3 | 2021-12-09 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1855/2020-3 | 2021-07-02 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2837/2019-3 | 2020-11-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1243/2017-3 | 2020-06-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |