DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006371126-0003

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-07-20

R0859/2021-3

Contested design: 006371126-0003

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

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)

Registered RCD

door handle

RCD No 3 241 124-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-06-29

Patent⚠ rejected as evidence

door handle prior design

CN303910749S · Chinese patent publication · disclosed 2016-11-16

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 6Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The design holder argued that market trends and functional constraints in the hardware sector meant that the similarities with the cited earlier handle designs should carry less weight.
  • The invalidity applicant replied that earlier RCD No 3 241 124-0001 already produced the same overall impression and that the contested handle lacked individual character.
  • The Board held that the prior RCD alone destroyed the individual character of the contested design because the remaining differences in edge angles, backplate and decorative insert were only minor variations.
  • 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

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0181/2025-32025-05-27Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0827/2024-32025-03-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1336/2024-32025-03-03Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0797/2024-32025-01-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1123/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1125/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1124/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1015/2024-32024-11-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5