Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-08-04
R0015/2023-3
Contested design: 001653676-0004
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, 44206 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 (8)
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
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
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued the outdoor-toilet design reproduced standard market forms, lacked novelty and individual character over prior designs D1-D8, and consisted only of technically driven features.
- ›The design holder replied that the protected exterior combined distinct colour segmentation, a blue band, canopy, screen, pictograms and door arrangement, and that bad faith was inadmissible.
- ›The Board held Article 8(1) was not established, accepted D1-D8 as the relevant prior designs, and found the contested RCD visually distinct in colour blocking, roof form, lateral screen and front-door composition.
- ›Since those differences dominated the overall impression for the informed user, the contested RCD retained individual character and novelty and the appeal was dismissed.
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 |