Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-02-23
R1019/2021-3
Contested design: 002773812-0004
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant’s costs in both instances.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
PITK PELOTAS, S.L.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Polígono Industrial Noain-Esquiroz, Calle P, Número 22, 31110 Noain, Spain
Represented by
Jesús Maria Zugarrondo Temiño
Holder · RCD owner
Technogym S.p.A.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via G. Perticari, 20, 47035 Gambettola, Forli’-Cesena, Italy
Represented by
Prior art cited (9)
exercise-equipment handle prior design
CN2829803Y · Chinese patent publication · disclosed 2006-10-25
exercise-equipment handle prior design
CN2581004Y · Chinese patent publication · disclosed 2003-10-22
exercise-equipment handle prior design
CN2569834Y · Chinese patent publication · disclosed 2003-09-03
exercise-equipment handle prior design
CN201120081Y · Chinese patent publication · disclosed 2008-09-24
exercise-equipment handle prior design
TWM502489U · Taiwanese patent publication · disclosed 2015-06-11
exercise-equipment handle prior design
CN204233685U · Chinese patent publication · disclosed 2015-04-01
exercise-equipment handle prior design
CN2514864Y · Chinese patent publication · disclosed 2002-10-09
exercise-equipment handle prior design
CN102908750A · Chinese patent publication · disclosed 2013-02-06
exercise-equipment handle prior design
CN2892180Y · Chinese patent publication · disclosed 2007-04-25
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested exercise-equipment handle reproduced the overall appearance of earlier Chinese and Taiwanese patent disclosures.
- ›The design holder contended that the handle’s form was shaped by technical and ergonomic constraints and that the filed prior designs showed visible differences.
- ›The Board agreed with the Invalidity Division that the contested RCD lacked individual character over the invoked prior art and that the invalidity action succeeded on that basis.
- ›The holder’s appeal was dismissed; the invalidity finding remained in force and costs stayed with the holder.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurC. Bartos
- MemberH. Salmi
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
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 |