Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-08-04
R0049/2023-3
Contested design: 001653676-0005
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs incurred by the design holder 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 (5)
outdoor public toilet
flickr.com
outdoor public toilet
flickr.com
outdoor public toilet
flickr.com
outdoor public toilet
flickr.com
outdoor public toilet
http://www.euromodul.hr · Internet Archive · disclosed 2008-12-24
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing lack of novelty and individual character, technically dictated features, wrongly excluded disclosures, and bad faith by the design holder.
- ›The design holder replied that the protected external appearance still allowed design freedom, the cited prior toilets differed materially, and the bad-faith allegation was unfounded.
- ›The Board held Article 8(1) was not proven because the applicant did not show all appearance features were solely technically dictated; the bad-faith claim was inadmissible under Article 25(1).
- ›The Board accepted D1 to D5 as relevant disclosures, found the contested RCD created a different overall impression on the informed user, and dismissed the appeal with costs against the applicant.
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 |