DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007397146-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-10-07

R0055/2022-3

Contested design: 007397146-0001

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

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

Concaver Sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Wabcz, 60, 86-212 Stolno, Poland

Represented by

Michał Jędrzejewski

Holder · RCD owner

S Dizing S.r.l.via PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

Strada Principala, 557, 617106 Brusturi, Romania

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCD

wheel for vehicles / wheel rim design

RCD No 7 307 277-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin / Office register extract · disclosed 2019-12-10

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6(1)Article 7(1)Article 7(2)Article 7(3)

Argument summary

  • The design holder argued on appeal that it had created and shown the wheel-rim design before the prior RCD was filed and that the earlier disclosure should be ignored under the grace-period or abuse exceptions.
  • The invalidity applicant replied that the new evidence was late and insufficient and that the earlier registered RCD No 7 307 277-0001 had been properly disclosed before the contested filing date.
  • The Board found that the holder had not proved an abuse or a qualifying disclosure exception and endorsed the first-instance view that the two wheel designs created the same overall impression on the informed user.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the invalidation of the contested RCD for lack of individual character was confirmed.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurS. Rizzo
  • MemberH. Salmi
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

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
R1562/2022-32023-05-31Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 7(2), Art 7(3)11
R2427/2023-32024-07-31Decision partially annulledArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 60(1)10
R2322/2024-32025-05-21Decision confirmedArt 6(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)9
R2422/2022-32024-01-30Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)9
R2336/2022-32023-11-27Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 7(2), Art 63(2)9
R1290/2021-32022-10-26Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 7(2)9
R1289/2021-32022-10-26Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 7(2)9
R0303/2021-32022-07-12Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b)9