Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-07-02
R1855/2020-3
Contested design: 003850601-0028
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, Bucharest, Romania
Represented by
Claudia Monica Frisch
Prior art cited (2)
Romanian product page for product No 898
http://goldglass.ro · goldglass.ro · disclosed 2016-02-17
Catalogues, invoices and photos allegedly showing the same dish before filing and at international glass fairs
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing that an identical design had been marketed and disclosed before filing and that invoices, catalogues, photos and website material proved lack of novelty and individual character.
- ›The design holder replied that the alleged earlier design had not been shown by solid and objective evidence of disclosure and that the untranslated and self-originating web material was insufficient under Article 7 CDR.
- ›The Board held that the submitted screenshot, links and supporting material did not establish beyond doubt that the earlier design had been made available to the public before the filing date of the contested RCD.
- ›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 |
| R1856/2020-3 | 2021-06-30 | 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 |