DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008813851-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-11-28

R0889/2024-3

Contested design: 008813851-0001

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed; the design holder must bear the costs and fees of the invalidity and appeal proceedings, and the appeal surcharge fee is to be reimbursed.

Show verbatim operative text

Dismisses the appeal; Orders the design holder to bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings; Orders the reimbursement of the appeal surcharge fee .

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno – Handlowo - Usługowe ‘ANDERS’ Export – Import Setla Wiesławvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Węglowa 21, 34-300 Żywiec, Poland

Represented by

Anna Bożek-Mozgała

Holder · RCD owner

KAZA DESIGN SPÓŁKA Z OGRANICZONĄ ODPOWIEDZIALNOŚCIĄvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

UL. ŻYWIECKA 212, 34-325 ŁODYGOWICE, Poland

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosure

Facebook posts showing the 'Ralph wood' table

Facebook profile 'Rosanero' · disclosed 2018-09-22

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The design holder argued on appeal that the contested coffee-table design differed from the prior design in the leg and base structure and top edge, reflecting innovation, limited design freedom, and a crowded market.
  • The invalidity applicant filed no response to the appeal and relied on its first-instance case that Facebook disclosures of the prior 'Ralph wood' table destroyed individual character.
  • The Board accepted the Facebook disclosures, found broad design freedom for coffee tables, and held that the shared round wood-like top, black frame, and Y-shaped three-leg base dominated the overall impression.
  • Minor differences in leg layering and top-edge height were insufficient, so the appeal was dismissed, invalidity for lack of individual character was confirmed, costs stayed with the holder, and the appeal surcharge fee was reimbursed.

Deciding panel

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

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deGermanhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esSpanishhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
itItalianhuman 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
R2274/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0093/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2273/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1575/2025-32026-04-29Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1395/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1394/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1318/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1396/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5