Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-12-13
R2289/2022-3
Contested design: 005507035-0003
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs for the invalidity and appeal proceedings, fixed at EUR 900.
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, which are fixed at the amount of EUR 900.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €900
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Mariusz Jachimczuk Edgardvia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Ul. Belgijska 11, 02-511 Warszawa, Poland
Holder · RCD owner
Bright Junior Media sp. z o.o. sp.k.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Ul. Władysława Syrokomli 20/8, 30-102 Kraków, Poland
Represented by
Aleksandra Kacperska
Prior art cited (3)
jigsaw puzzle
National design No 970146-003 · INPI France
zestaw maluszka jigsaw puzzle
https://archiwum.allegro.pl/oferta/fisherpricetrefl-zestaw-maluszka-puzzle-duze-i7377935531.html · Allegro / product box · disclosed 2018-07-11
zestaw maluszka jigsaw puzzle
https://archiwum.allegro.pl/oferta/treflfisherprice-zestaw-maluszka-2-bdb-i7180822120.html · Allegro / product box · disclosed 2018-02-18
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing the puzzle design was dictated by technical function and lacked individual character over prior puzzles D1 to D3.
- ›The design holder maintained that the puzzle pieces and removable elements reflected design freedom and that the earlier puzzles created different overall impressions.
- ›The Board found the applicant had not shown all appearance features were solely dictated by technical function and confirmed that D1, D2 and D3 differed in visible arbitrary features.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the contested design remained valid in full.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberH. Salmi
- RegistrarM. Chaleva
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0878/2022-3 | 2023-02-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 9 |
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R0204/2024-3 | 2025-06-04 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R2453/2023-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0494/2023-3 | 2024-03-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R0861/2023-3 | 2024-02-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R0862/2023-3 | 2024-02-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R0489/2022-3 | 2023-12-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |