Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-06-16
R1702/2024-3
Contested design: 006272522-0001
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
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
PRZEDSIĘBIORSTWO “TOOLCO” KAZIMIERZ MITROSZEWSKIvia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
KOMUNALNA 11, 15-197 BIAŁYSTOK, Poland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
WIRPLAST– Więcek Spółka Jawnavia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Stawowa 9a, 42-287 Babienica, Poland
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
ventilation fittings
REUD No 5289642-0001 · EUIPO eSearch plus / European Union Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-06-08
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed, arguing that designer freedom was constrained and that differences in the angled top, grooves, ring dividers, wider upper section, trade mark and side cut-outs created a different overall impression.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that designer freedom remained relatively wide, the Division properly compared the registered designs, and any identified differences were minor and insufficient.
- ›The Board held that the earlier REUD was validly disclosed, that ventilation elements allow substantial variation despite functional constraints, and that the shared cylindrical top, ring-like vents, body and inclined oval base dominate the informed user's perception.
- ›It found the contested REUD lacked individual character over the prior design, dismissed the appeal, and upheld the costs order against the design holder.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarE. Wagner
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 |