Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-03-03
R0131/2024-3
Contested design: 003491869-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the holder's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings, fixed at EUR 900.
Show verbatim operative text(fr)
1 Le recours est rejeté ; 2 La demanderesse en nullité devra supporter les frais exposés par le titulaire du modèle contesté dans le cadre des procédures de nullité et de recours, lesquels sont fixés à 900 EUR.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €900
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
NEOMARK s.à.r.l.via PDF extraction
LU
14a, Rue de la Gare, L-4924 Hautcharage, Luxembourg
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
José Rodrigues Da Costavia PDF extraction
Portugal (PT)
Rua José Manuel Carilho 6, Buarcos, 3080-232 Figueira da Foz, Portugal
Prior art cited (1)
European patent application concerning a lifting device
EP 3 450 381 · disclosed 2017-08-31
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant appealed, arguing every visible feature of the lifting device was dictated solely by technical and safety requirements, relying mainly on EP 3 450 381, industry regulations, CAD colour conventions, and Portuguese litigation materials.
- ›Holder replied that the patent and regulations did not prove exclusive technical causation, the rounded wall shape and visual configuration reflected non-technical choices, and the Portuguese dispute concerned different designs and parties.
- ›The Board admitted the new evidence but held that the applicant still had to prove that all appearance features were exclusively functional under Article 8(1) CDR.
- ›The Board found the patent did not require the specific rounded wall shape, the cited regulations imposed no particular appearance, and the Portuguese case was irrelevant, so at least that feature was not proven purely technical.
- ›The appeal was dismissed, the rejection of the invalidity application was confirmed, and the applicant was ordered to reimburse EUR 900 in costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberS. Rizzo
- RegistrarE. Apaolaza Alm
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1394/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1) | — | 5 |
| R1395/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1) | — | 5 |
| R1826/2025-3 | 2026-04-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1) | — | 5 |
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1) | — | 5 |
| R2328/2024-3 | 2025-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1) | — | 5 |
| R2089/2024-3 | 2025-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1) | — | 5 |
| R0204/2024-3 | 2025-06-04 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1) | — | 5 |
| R0029/2018-3 | 2024-09-09 | Decision confirmed | Art 8(1) | — | 5 |