Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-05-12
R1620/2024-3
Contested design: 015036114-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
HDM KAUCUK ZEMIN KAP. SPOR EKIP. PEY. GERI DÖN. ITH. IHR. SAN. TIC. LTD. STI.via PDF extraction
Türkiye (TR)
Modern Keresteciler Sıt. 5. Cad. No 14 Saray Kazan Ankara Turkey
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
BEKA SPOR ZEMINLERI SANAYI VE DIS TICARET LIMITED SIRKETIvia PDF extraction
Türkiye (TR)
Orta Mahalle, Tevfik Ileri Caddesi Ördekçioglu Blok 32 1 Pendik Istanbul Turkey
Represented by
Francisco José Rodríguez Alvarez
Prior art cited (8)
floor covering
Turkish design No 2020/08795 · Turkish Bulletin · disclosed 2020-12-24
floor covering shown on pages 10-11 of the HDM Zemin Kaplama catalogue
HDM Zemin Kaplama catalogue
floor covering shown on pages 14-15 of the HDM Zemin Kaplama catalogue
HDM Zemin Kaplama catalogue
floor covering shown in an alleged social media screenshot
alleged Facebook or Instagram account of the invalidity applicant
floor covering shown in an alleged social media screenshot
alleged Facebook or Instagram account of the invalidity applicant
floor covering shown in an alleged social media screenshot
alleged Facebook or Instagram account of the invalidity applicant
floor covering shown in an alleged social media screenshot
alleged Facebook or Instagram account of the invalidity applicant
floor covering shown in an alleged social media screenshot
alleged Facebook or Instagram account of the invalidity applicant
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing the contested design lacked novelty over D1 and other prior floor-covering designs, and also tried to raise conflict with its earlier Turkish design right.
- ›The design holder filed no observations either before the Invalidity Division or in reply on appeal.
- ›The Board limited the case to lack of novelty, accepted the late-filed appeal evidence but found D2 to D8 still not properly disclosed under Article 7(1).
- ›Comparing only D1 with the contested design, the Board found visible differences in relief, layout and corner framing, so the designs were not identical and the appeal failed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberC. Negro
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0054/2025-3 | 2025-09-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R2089/2024-3 | 2025-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R2328/2024-3 | 2025-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R1002/2024-3 | 2025-02-14 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R1845/2023-3 | 2024-12-09 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R2289/2023-3 | 2024-12-09 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |
| R0542/2022-3 | 2023-04-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1) | — | 5 |