Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-04-04
R0860/2021-3
Contested design: 006371126-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's costs and fees in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
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)
Głogoczów 996, 32-444 Głogoczów, Poland
Represented by
Marek Mikosza
Prior art cited (1)
Door handle
RCD No 3 241 124-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-06-29
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed, arguing that door-handle design freedom was constrained by function and market trends, so the earlier handles did not deprive the contested RCD of individual character.
- ›The invalidity applicant maintained that the earlier registered design and other cited disclosures showed the same minimalistic overall impression and that alleged trends did not limit designer freedom.
- ›The Board agreed with the Invalidity Division that the earlier registered door-handle design had been properly disclosed and that the common structural and ornamental features produced the same overall impression on the informed user.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the first-instance invalidation for lack of individual character was upheld.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberC. Bartos
- 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 |