Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-08-29
R0029/2022-3
Contested design: 002138008-0031
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the design holder must bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant 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
VDS Czmyr Kowalik Spółka Komandytowavia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Łagiewnicka 4a, 41-608 Świętochłowice, Poland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
M & T 1997, a.s.via PDF extraction
Czechia (CZ)
Čs. odboje 1044, 51801 Dobruška, Czech Republic
Represented by
Škoda
Prior art cited (1)
minimalist door handle variant
griffwerk.de 'Consistency' / baulinks.de 'Rosettenloser Türgriff van Frascio huldigt dem Purismus' · griffwerk.de and baulinks.de · disclosed 2010-10-20
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested door-handle design lacked individual character over an earlier minimalist handle disclosed on third-party websites before filing.
- ›The design holder maintained that the rounded grip, neck transition and edges distinguished the contested handle and also sought an oral hearing.
- ›The Board found that door-handle designers enjoy a high degree of freedom and that the contested handle differed from the prior design only in minor variations that did not alter the overall impression.
- ›The appeal was dismissed, the invalidation was maintained, and the holder had to bear the costs and fees of the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberC. Bartos
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0173/2025-3 | 2025-10-31 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0171/2025-3 | 2025-09-23 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1804/2024-3 | 2025-11-19 | Decision annulled | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R0093/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2274/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2273/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1575/2025-3 | 2026-04-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |