DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001012769-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-02-03

R1080/2024-3

Contested design: 001012769-0001

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's costs and fees 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

EGL CORAL Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnościąvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Fabryczna 5, 05084 Leszno koło Błonia, Poland

Holder · RCD owner

Schulpen Schuim Leiden B.V.via PDF extraction

Netherlands (NL)

Zaalbergweg 17, 2314 XS Leiden, Netherlands

Represented by

SBGK ÜGYVÉDI IRODA

Prior art cited (1)

National design

household sponge design

Design registration No 892 545-002 · French National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) Bulletin · disclosed 1990-03-09

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The design holder appealed, arguing the contested sponge design had individual character because functional constraints limited design freedom and differences in texture, density, finish, and edges changed the overall impression.
  • The invalidity applicant replied that design freedom for household sponges was high or at least average, and that both designs shared the same hourglass shape and two-layer structure without meaningful variation.
  • The Board held that the prior French design had been disclosed before the filing date, that sponge design freedom still allowed many shapes and appearances, and that the informed user would focus on the shared curved two-layer configuration with irregular dark particles.
  • The Board found any alleged differences too minor to alter the overall impression, confirmed lack of individual character, dismissed the appeal, and left novelty and other prior designs unexamined.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
  • RapporteurH. Salmi
  • MemberC. Bartos
  • 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