DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008720353-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-01-16

R0797/2024-3

Contested design: 008720353-0001

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the holder must bear the applicant's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Inhaberin trägt die Kosten des Antragstellers im Nichtigkeits- und Beschwerdeverfahren.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Paweł Radzik Inmanivia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Tadeusza Kościuszki 36, 38-300 Gorlice, Polen

Holder · RCD owner

Trenkle & Trenkle GbRvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Unterriedweg 3, 87459 Pfronten, Deutschland

Represented by

MEISSNER & MEISSNER

Prior art cited (5)

Web disclosureAnlagen 1-3

Screenshots showing Parallettes / small gymnastics bars

wksklep.pl; Instagram @wkslep · wksklep.pl and Instagram · disclosed 2021-05-12

Web disclosureAnlagen 4-5

Screenshots with customer reviews and images of Parallettes / small gymnastics bars

allegro.pl · allegro.pl

Web disclosureAnlagen 6-7

Screenshots with customer reviews and images of Parallettes / small gymnastics bars

allegro.pl · allegro.pl

Web disclosureAnlagen 8-9

Amazon product offer and customer reviews for wooden mini parallettes

amazon.pl ASIN listing for "RAMASS Fitness Push Up Bars, Wooden Mini Parallettes, Gymnastic Bars, Calisthenics" · amazon.pl · disclosed 2021-04-22

Web disclosureAnlage 10

Screenshot showing Parallettes / small gymnastics bars

allegro.pl · allegro.pl

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6(1)Article 6(2)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The holder appealed, arguing designer freedom for parallettes was limited and the contested design created a more compact overall impression than the cited earlier design.
  • The invalidity applicant supported the contested decision, saying the differences were barely perceptible and insufficient to produce a different overall impression.
  • The Board held Annexes 8-9 sufficiently proved prior disclosure on Amazon before the filing date and found no evidence that technical or safety constraints materially restricted designer freedom.
  • Comparing the designs individually, the Board found the shared trapezoidal supports and bar arrangement dominated; the shorter, thicker bar and rounded lower corners only made the contested design a variant of the earlier design.
  • The appeal was dismissed, the invalidity of RCD No 8 720 353-0001 was confirmed, and the holder was ordered to pay the applicant's costs.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
  • RapporteurE. Fink
  • MemberA. Pohlmann
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0181/2025-32025-05-27Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0827/2024-32025-03-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1336/2024-32025-03-03Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1123/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1125/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1124/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1015/2024-32024-11-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0252/2024-32024-11-05Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5