Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-07-20
R0858/2021-3
Contested design: 006371126-0004
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)
Głogoczów 996, 32-444 Głogoczów, 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 design
CN303910749S · Chinese patent publication · disclosed 2016-11-16
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder argued that its door-handle design remained new and individual and that market trends and functional constraints reduced the weight of similarities with the cited earlier handle designs.
- ›The invalidity applicant maintained that earlier RCD No 3 241 124-0001 already created the same overall impression, while the late-filed Chinese patent evidence could not alter the result.
- ›The Board found that the prior RCD alone destroyed the individual character of the contested design, since the differences in the rosette, edges and engraved rectangle were only minor variations within a highly similar overall handle shape.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the design holder was ordered to bear the invalidity applicant’s costs and fees.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberC. Bartos
- Registrarp.o. E. Apaolaza
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 |