Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-04-14
R1087/2022-3
Contested design: 003731652-0033
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder’s costs, and the recoverable costs are fixed at EUR 900.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal. 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs and fees incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings. 3. Fixes the costs to be paid by the invalidity applicant to the design holder for the invalidity and appeal proceedings at EUR 900.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €900
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Maciej Paluchowski Bastervia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Elektryków, nr 10, Świecie, 86-100 Świecie, Poland
Represented by
Jakub Kubalski
Holder · RCD owner
Puczyński-Mała Architektura Mariusz Puczyńskivia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Robotnicza 31 05-800 Pruszków, Poland
Prior art cited (6)
garden bench / park bench design
RCD No 2 726 620-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-07-13
bench seat design
RCD No 2 333 401-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2013-10-31
bench design
French design No 20 125 161 · French design publication · disclosed 2013-01-18
bench design
RCD No 3 114 727-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-05-25
bench design
French design No 20 124 377 · French design publication · disclosed 2012-11-23
bench design
RCD No 2 962 589-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-01-29
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant contended that the contested park-bench design reproduced the essential frame, slat, backrest and armrest configuration of six earlier bench designs.
- ›The holder replied that benches form a crowded field but that the contested RCD remained distinct in slat counts, frame construction, armrests and leg geometry, and that late internet evidence was irrelevant.
- ›The Board compared the contested bench with D1 to D6 one by one and found noticeable differences in slat arrangement, mounting, frame structure, armrests and legs that changed the overall impression each time.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the Board fixed the holder’s recoverable costs for both instances at EUR 900.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberC. Negro
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0116/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0115/2025-3 | 2025-07-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2453/2023-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0952/2021-3 | 2024-09-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2140/2023-3 | 2024-08-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2585/2023-3 | 2024-08-06 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1745/2023-3 | 2024-06-25 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |