Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-05-15
R1517/2024-3
Contested design: 015019759-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant 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
Dambat Jastrzębski Spółka komandytowo-akcyjnavia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Adamów 50, 05-825 Grodzisk Mazowiecki, Poland
Represented by
Helena Beata Gajek
Holder · RCD owner
Firma Handlowa IN-HOME Justyna Siudekvia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Tczewska 1, 86-170 Nowe, Poland
Prior art cited (2)
pumps for liquids
RCD No 8 982 508-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2022-05-10
pumps for liquids
RCD No 8 927 479-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2022-06-22
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed, arguing the design concerned technically constrained submersible sewage pumps, design freedom was low, the sector was saturated, and differences in colour and details created a different overall impression.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that the registered product indication was the broader category of pumps for liquids, design freedom remained high, the saturation evidence was insufficient, and D2 created the same overall impression.
- ›The Board held the relevant product category was pumps for liquids, accepted the additional appeal evidence on design freedom, and found the cited market material did not prove sector saturation.
- ›Comparing the contested RCD with D2, the Board found the shared shape and arrangement of features decisive, while colour and cable differences were minor, so the RCD lacked individual character and the appeal failed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurC. Negro
- MemberC. Bartos
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2274/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0093/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2273/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1575/2025-3 | 2026-04-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1395/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1394/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1318/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1396/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |