Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-06-16
R1703/2024-3
Contested design: 006272522-0002
Outcome
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
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 5 289 642-0001 · eSearch plus database / European Union Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-06-08
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed, arguing that designer freedom was limited and that the angled top, grooves, segmented rings, wider upper section, air inlets, trade mark and side buttons created a different overall impression.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that ventilation elements allow broad design freedom, the first-instance comparison correctly relied on the registered representations, and the identified differences were minor.
- ›The Board held that the prior REUD was validly disclosed before filing and that the shared cylindrical upper section with ring-like ridges, body and inclined oval base dominated the overall impression.
- ›It found the cited differences too subtle to outweigh the overall similarities, confirmed lack of individual character, and dismissed the appeal with costs against the design holder.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberE. Fink
- 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 |