← Back to search
Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-09-16
R0469/2024-3
Contested design: 003119601-0012
CDRAppellant: holder
Outcome
Appeal inadmissible
The appeal is dismissed as inadmissible, and the design holder is ordered to bear the invalidity applicant's costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal as inadmissible; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs incurred by the invalidity applicant.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
ТОП ТЕНvia PDF extraction
Bulgaria (BG)
ul. Zhelezarska no. 9, 4000 Plovdiv, Bulgaria
Represented by
Stoyan Sirakov
Holder · RCD owner
DOORS BULGARIA EOODvia PDF extraction
Bulgaria (BG)
j.k. "Pobeda", bl. 9, floor 2, app. 10, 9000 Varna, Bulgaria
Legal grounds invoked
Article 57Article 35(1)Article 91(2)Article 67(3)Article 70(1)
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant had attacked the contested RCD for lack of novelty and individual character, and the Invalidity Division declared it invalid for lack of novelty.
- ›The design holder appealed, requested suspension because of a pending Sofia City Court counterclaim, and alternatively sought annulment of the invalidity decision.
- ›The Board found the statement of grounds was late because notification was deemed on 9 January 2024 and the four-month period expired on 10 May 2024.
- ›The Board rejected suspension, noted any possible restitutio request would in any event be deemed not filed without the fee, and dismissed the appeal as inadmissible with costs against the design holder.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurA. Pohlmann
- MemberC. Negro
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0470/2024-3 | 2024-09-16 | Closed without deciding on the merits | Art 35(1) | — | 5 |
| R1157/2024-3 | 2025-06-23 | Decision confirmed | Art 91(2) | — | 4 |
| R1156/2024-3 | 2025-06-23 | Decision confirmed | Art 91(2) | — | 4 |
| R1158/2024-3 | 2025-06-23 | Decision confirmed | Art 91(2) | — | 4 |
| R2491/2020-3 | 2024-11-26 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 91(2) | — | 4 |
| R2493/2020-3 | 2024-11-26 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 91(2) | — | 4 |
| R1398/2017-3 | 2019-03-20 | Case suspended | Art 91(2) | — | 4 |
| R1101/2024-3 | 2024-11-13 | Closed without deciding on the merits | Art 35(1) | — | 3 |