Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-11-07
R1015/2024-3
Contested design: 009019045-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1 Dismisses the appeal. 2 Orders the design holder to bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
BJS CREATIVE SP. Z O.O.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
KIEŁMINA 63, 95010 STRYKÓW, Poland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Jerzy Pietrucha BUSINESS ASSETSvia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Przemysłowa 10, 98-235 Błaszki, Poland
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
fluid distribution equipment
RCD No 5 253 416-0001 · EUIPO eSearch database · disclosed 2018-05-18
fluid distribution equipment
RCD No 7 547 070-0001 · EUIPO eSearch database · disclosed 2020-06-04
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed, arguing the contested RCD had individual character because the informed user was a narrow specialist group, design freedom was technically constrained, and visible differences changed the overall impression.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that the informed user was broader, the designer retained broad freedom, and the contested RCD and D1 produced the same overall impression.
- ›The Board found D1 was validly disclosed, the informed user was not a technical expert, and the designer retained meaningful freedom despite functional constraints.
- ›The Board held that the shared Y-shaped structure and trapezoidal gutter form dominated the comparison, while the arrow detail and colour difference were insufficient to create a different overall impression.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the invalidation of the contested RCD for lack of individual character was upheld, with costs awarded against the design holder.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberS. Rizzo
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deGerman | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | human 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1336/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1719/2023-3 | 2024-06-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1747/2022-3 | 2024-01-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0367/2022-3 | 2023-06-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2024/2021-3 | 2022-07-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2025/2021-3 | 2022-07-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2026/2021-3 | 2022-07-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0303/2021-3 | 2022-07-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |