Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-11-26
R2551/2023-3
Contested design: 001945783-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(it)
1. Il ricorso è respinto 2. Le spese sostenute dalla richiedente la nullità nei procedimenti di nullità e di ricorso sono poste a carico della titolare.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Madara Agro Ltd.via PDF extraction
Bulgaria (BG)
No.1 Madara blvd., j.k. Industrialen, 9700 Shumen, Bulgaria
Represented by
Kostadin Manev
Holder · RCD owner
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Marcello, 73, 35011 Campodarsego (PD), Italia
Represented by
Prior art cited (6)
earlier agricultural machine design filed by the holder
RCD No 1140891-0001 · Community design publication · disclosed 2009-06-23
reversible tool for agricultural subsoilers and others
EP 1998604 · European patent publication · disclosed 2007-10-11
Vogel & Noot TerraDig XXS subsoiler
TerraDig XXS · YouTube; INOVEX catalog; profi.de article · disclosed 2009-10-29
Papadopoulos RY 7 subsoil cultivator
RY 7 · YouTube; NICOM-M Ltd catalog · disclosed 2010-03-24
Dante Macchine DSM36 subsoiler
DSM36 · EIMA brochure; supplementary Dante Macchine brochure/web extract · disclosed 2010-11-10
Madara Mounted Subsoil Cultivators, Series PM
Series PM · Madara Group 2009 catalog
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The holder-appellant argued that the contested decision improperly combined different undated D5 depictions and overlooked material design differences in the plates, beams, teeth, and connecting elements.
- ›The invalidity applicant-respondent maintained that the dated EIMA 2010 brochure sufficiently disclosed D5 and that the cited differences were technical or modular variations that did not alter the overall impression.
- ›The Board held that the EIMA brochure proved D5's prior disclosure, while undated supplementary images could only clarify the appearance of the same model and did not independently establish disclosure.
- ›Considering the informed user and the fairly broad designer freedom, the Board found D5 and the contested RCD produced the same overall impression, so the appeal was dismissed and costs imposed on the holder.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberC. Negro
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1826/2025-3 | 2026-04-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0333/2025-3 | 2026-01-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1)(b), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1858/2022-3 | 2024-11-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1857/2022-3 | 2024-11-08 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2125/2023-3 | 2024-07-24 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0598/2022-3 | 2023-06-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0599/2022-3 | 2023-06-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 6(1)(b) | — | 7 |