Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-09-11
R0005/2024-3
Contested design: 005809746-0001
Outcome
The Board annuls the contested decision, rejects the invalidity application, and orders the invalidity applicant to pay EUR 1,700 in costs and fees.
Show verbatim operative text
Annuls the contested decision and rejects the application for a declaration of invalidity. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs and fees incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings in the total amount of EUR 1 700.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €1,700
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Ecosauna Project OÜvia PDF extraction
EE
Õli, 63419 Valgjärve küla, Kanepi vald, Estonia
Holder · RCD owner
Ekomill OÜvia PDF extraction
EE
Õli, Valgjärve küla, 63419 Kanepi vald Põlvamaa, Estonia
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
oval-shaped wooden sauna marketed by a Lithuanian company
https://www.facebook.com/kelmolis/photos/pb.100054635521850.2207520000../505139396231084/?type=3 ; https://www.facebook.com/kelmolis/photos/pb.100054635521850.-2207520000../669020229842999/?type=3 · Facebook / Kelmolis UAB · disclosed 2013-08-22
sauna commercialised by a German company
https://www.facebook.com/saunafaesser.de/photos/pb.100054421992154.-2207520000../2079332962207552/?type=3 ; https://www.facebook.com/saunafaesser.de/photos/pb.100054421992154.-2207520000../2083361498471365/?type=3 · Facebook / saunafaesser.de · disclosed 2017-11-18
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed, arguing the Facebook screenshots did not reliably prove disclosure and that one cited design also fell within the Article 7(2) grace period.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that the posts were authentic, their dates had not been changed, and the design holder had not proved any collusion or manipulation.
- ›The Board held that screenshots without the full URL and without corroborating evidence do not provide solid and objective proof of online disclosure under Article 7(1) CDR.
- ›Because disclosure of both prior designs D1 and D2 was not proven, the invalidity application under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 4 CDR had to be rejected and the first-instance decision annulled.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberH. Salmi
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0050/2017-3 | 2021-12-09 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R0291/2018-3 | 2019-01-14 | Decision annulled | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R0054/2025-3 | 2025-09-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 4 |
| R2328/2024-3 | 2025-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 4 |
| R2089/2024-3 | 2025-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 4 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 4 |
| R1620/2024-3 | 2025-05-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 4 |
| R1002/2024-3 | 2025-02-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 4 |