DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006857819-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-02-14

R1002/2024-3

Contested design: 006857819-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

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

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Nichtigkeitsantragstellerin trägt die Kosten und Gebühren der Inhaberin im Nichtigkeits- und Beschwerdeverfahren.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Jelenia Plast sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Spoldzielcza 47, 58 500 Jelenia Gora, Polen

Represented by

HARMSEN UTESCHER

Holder · RCD owner

Gusta Garden GmbHvia PDF extraction

Austria (AT)

Eschenweg 16, 9551 Bodensdorf, Österreich

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosureAnlage Ast. 3⚠ rejected as evidence

NETTO-Pflanzenturm

Microsoft Bing image search / discounto.de / NETTO · disclosed 2017-03-14

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6(1)Article 7Article 5

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing the contested design lacked novelty and individual character because a NETTO plant tower had been disclosed online before 11 September 2019.
  • The holder said the Bing image-search date was unreliable and that the product was first promoted in March 2021, supported by a NETTO leaflet, enforcement correspondence, and expert evidence.
  • The Board held that the Bing screenshot had low evidential value without the underlying webpage and contained contradictory dates that created justified doubt about any 14 March 2017 disclosure.
  • Because prior disclosure of the cited plant tower was not proven, the invalidity grounds failed, the first-instance refusal was confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed with 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
R0054/2025-32025-09-18Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R2089/2024-32025-08-22Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R2328/2024-32025-08-22Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R2322/2024-32025-05-21Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R1620/2024-32025-05-12Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R1845/2023-32024-12-09Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R2289/2023-32024-12-09Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R0542/2022-32023-04-03Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5