DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015019759-0002

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-05-15

R1518/2024-3

Contested design: 015019759-0002

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the design holder is ordered to 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

Represented by

"PATENTBOX" KANCELARIA PATENTOWA

Romuald Suszczewicz

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCD

pumps for liquids

Community design registration No 8 927 479-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2022-06-22

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over earlier Community design registration No 8 927 479-0001.
  • The design holder argued the product was a technically constrained submersible sewage pump, the sector was saturated, and colour, labels and cable details created a different overall impression.
  • The Board held the relevant product category remained pumps for liquids, the designer retained meaningful freedom, and the saturation claim was not proven.
  • Because the two designs had the same overall shape and configuration, with only minor colour and cable differences, the Board dismissed the appeal and confirmed invalidity.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
  • RapporteurC. Negro
  • MemberC. Bartos
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R2274/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0093/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2273/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1575/2025-32026-04-29Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1395/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1394/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1318/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1396/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1518/2024-3 — EUIPO design Board of Appeal decision · DesignVerdict