Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-03-23
R0857/2021-3
Contested design: 006371126-0002
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant’s costs and fees in both instances.
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.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
DOMINO POLSKA Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością spółka komandytowavia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Rzeźnicza 4, 58-200 Dzierżoniów, Poland
Represented by
Bartosz Szczepaniak
Holder · RCD owner
Schaffner Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością Spółka Komandytowavia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Floriańska 37/1, 31-019 Kraków, Poland
Represented by
Marek Mikosza
Prior art cited (2)
door handle
RCD No 3 241 124-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-06-29
door handle prior design
CN303910749S · Chinese patent publication · disclosed 2016-11-16
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant attacked the door-handle design over earlier handle designs, chiefly RCD No 3 241 124-0001, and also referred to other RCDs, Qubik and Gustaw products, and a later-filed Chinese patent.
- ›The design holder argued that door-handle design freedom was constrained by function and prevailing market trends, and that late or untranslated evidence should not alter the outcome.
- ›The Board found that the specifically identified prior RCD alone destroyed the individual character of the contested design, making it unnecessary to examine the remaining grounds and prior designs.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the invalidity result stood and the holder had to bear the applicant’s costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberC. Bartos
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2471/2023-3 | 2024-08-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2422/2022-3 | 2024-01-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0133/2022-3 | 2022-12-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2206/2021-3 | 2022-12-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0055/2022-3 | 2022-10-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2054/2021-3 | 2022-08-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2028/2021-3 | 2022-07-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0303/2021-3 | 2022-07-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |