Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-08-04
R0002/2023-3
Contested design: 001653676-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
HAMSTER Polska Sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Pod Hałdą 37B, 44-206 Rybnik, Poland
Represented by
Anna Agnieszka Szczurek
Holder · RCD owner
Budotechnika Sp. o.o.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Bierawka 2a, 44-145 Pilchowice, Poland
Represented by
Justyna Pawłowska
Prior art cited (5)
outdoor public toilet
flickr.com screenshot · Flickr.com
outdoor public toilet
flickr.com screenshot · Flickr.com
outdoor public toilet
flickr.com screenshot · Flickr.com
outdoor public toilet
flickr.com screenshot · Flickr.com
outdoor public toilet
http://www.euromodul.hr archive · Internet Archive / euromodul.hr · disclosed 2008-12-24
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued the outdoor-toilet design reused standard pre-2009 toilet forms, lacked novelty and individual character over prior designs D1-D5, and consisted of technically dictated features.
- ›The design holder replied that the protected exterior included distinctive visual choices such as the canopy, long handle, pictograms and side screen, and that bad faith was not a valid ground.
- ›The Board held Article 8(1) was unproven because the applicant did not show all appearance features were solely technically dictated, and it accepted disclosure only for D1-D5 as properly identified prior designs.
- ›Comparing each prior design individually, the Board found clear differences in panelling, door arrangement, canopy, pictograms, roof and lateral screen, so the contested RCD kept individual character and novelty.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurC. Bartos
- MemberH. Salmi
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |