DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006039046-0002

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-03-07

R0677/2023-3

Contested design: 006039046-0002

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

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

TelForceOne S.A.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Krakowska 119, 50-428 Wrocław, Poland

Holder · RCD owner

"4KRAFT" spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnościąvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Tatrzańska 1/5, 60-413 Poznań, Poland

Prior art cited (4)

National designD1

German design for a car seat and baby stroller combination showing a wheel

M9800040-0001 · German Patent and Trademark Designs Bulletin · disclosed 1998-09-10

National designD2

German design for baby strollers showing a wheel

M9701050-0001 · German Patent and Trademark Designs Bulletin · disclosed 1997-08-25

National designD3

German design for wheels for baby strollers

M9703887-0001 · German Patent and Trademark Designs Bulletin · disclosed 1997-10-25

PublicationD4

GRACO EVO 3 IN 1 stroller with seat junior baby shown in SMYK sale newsletters

SMYK sale newsletters · disclosed 2012-11-01

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that stroller-wheel and children’s-bike wheel disclosures, including German design registrations D1 to D3 and the GRACO stroller newsletters, destroyed the novelty and individual character of the contested wheel design.
  • The design holder replied that the contested wheel was first disclosed only within the grace period, that the Allegro evidence was unreliable, and that the cited prior wheels created a different overall impression for a relatively attentive informed user.
  • The Board found that the differences in the spoke geometry, reinforcing elements and hub were significant and would be noticed by the informed user, particularly given the distinction between children’s-bike wheels and stroller wheels.
  • The Board therefore confirmed that the contested RCD retained individual character, dismissed the appeal and awarded costs against the invalidity applicant.

Deciding panel

  • ChairS. Stürmann
  • RapporteurC. Bartos
  • MemberA. Pohlmann
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
frFrenchhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R2336/2022-32023-11-27Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 7(2)7
R0115/2025-32025-07-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0116/2025-32025-07-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1669/2023-32024-11-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2453/2023-32024-10-30Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0952/2021-32024-09-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2140/2023-32024-08-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2585/2023-32024-08-06Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5