Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-03-03
R1336/2024-3
Contested design: 015020001-0001
Outcome
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
Dismisses the appeal. 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
Ihor Zhukvia PDF extraction
UA
vul. Promyslova, 26E, 82391 smt. Shidnytsia, Ukraine
Represented by
Thierry Van Ransbeeck
Holder · RCD owner
Shaman Inventionsvia PDF extraction
LV
Kaļķu iela 12, LV-4101 Cēsis, Latvia
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
Images of the earlier LELEKA / Architoyz foldable children's stepladder design
@architoyz Instagram post · Instagram · disclosed 2022-07-19
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder argued the product was a foldable learning tower or toy, that safety rules tightly constrained design freedom, and that triangular supports and other differences created a different overall impression.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that the product was correctly treated as a stepladder, designer freedom remained at least average, and the contested RCD conveyed the same overall impression as the earlier Instagram-disclosed design.
- ›The Board accepted Annex C as prior disclosure from 19 July 2022, treated both products as foldable stepladders for children, and found safety requirements did not standardise the exact shape, parts, or arrangement.
- ›The shared A-frame wooden structure, platform, top bars, and side beams dominated the comparison; the triangular base devices were a minor difference, so the contested RCD lacked individual character and the appeal failed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurC. Bartos
- MemberS. Rizzo
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deGerman | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1015/2024-3 | 2024-11-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1719/2023-3 | 2024-06-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1747/2022-3 | 2024-01-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0367/2022-3 | 2023-06-26 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2024/2021-3 | 2022-07-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2025/2021-3 | 2022-07-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2026/2021-3 | 2022-07-20 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0303/2021-3 | 2022-07-12 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |