Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-06-12
R2502/2022-3
Contested design: 001363220-0011
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, appeal-stage costs are awarded against the invalidity applicant, and the case is remitted to the Invalidity Division to continue the invalidity proceedings.
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 appeal proceedings; 3. Remits the case to the Invalidity Division to continue invalidity proceedings.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Gabi Jerczyński Sp. K.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Piaski 9a, 63-645 Łęka Opatowska, Poland
Holder · RCD owner
Henryk Kaczorowski Fabryka Mebli Piaski w spadkuvia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Piaski 1C, 63-645 Łęka Opatowska, Poland
Represented by
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›After the Invalidity Division first invalidated the contested furniture design without hearing the holder, the invalidity applicant appealed the later revocation of that invalidity decision.
- ›The invalidity applicant argued the Office lacked power to revoke and that the holder's failure to monitor its account could not justify re-notification or reopening the case.
- ›The Board held that an Office-caused account error deprived the holder of the right to be heard and that general procedural principles, applied via Article 68 CDR, allowed revocation within a reasonable time.
- ›It confirmed the revocation decision, dismissed the appeal, and remitted the case so the invalidity proceedings can continue with the holder heard.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberH. Salmi
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1826/2025-3 | 2026-04-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0333/2025-3 | 2026-01-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0204/2024-3 | 2025-06-04 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1)(b), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2551/2023-3 | 2024-11-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1857/2022-3 | 2024-11-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1858/2022-3 | 2024-11-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |