DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002249763-0012

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-06-23

R1156/2024-3

Contested design: 002249763-0012

CDRAppellant: holdermedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

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

ТОП ТЕНvia PDF extraction

Bulgaria (BG)

ul. Zhelezarska no. 9, 4000 Plovdiv, Bulgaria

Represented by

Stoyan Sirakov

Holder · RCD owner

DOORS BULGARIA EOODvia PDF extraction

Bulgaria (BG)

j.k. "Pobeda", bl. 9, floor 2, app. 10, 9000 Varna, Bulgaria

Represented by

Kostadin Manev

Prior art cited (1)

Catalog

MDF glazed door

Vesta Logistics EOOD brochure · disclosed 2010-05-03

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The design holder appealed, sought suspension under Article 91(2), and argued the Vesta Logistics brochure was unreliable and did not prove prior disclosure.
  • The invalidity applicant opposed suspension, said the Sofia City Court proceedings had been stayed in favour of the Office, and maintained the third-party brochure reliably disclosed the prior door in 2010.
  • The Board refused suspension because the national court had finally stayed its case in favour of the Office and the appeal could therefore continue.
  • The Board held the brochure was credible, professional third-party evidence of disclosure before 5 June 2013; because the individual-character findings were not challenged, the appeal was dismissed.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
  • RapporteurA. Pohlmann
  • MemberC. Negro
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
frFrenchhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)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
R1157/2024-32025-06-23Decision confirmedArt 63(1), Art 91(2)7
R1158/2024-32025-06-23Decision confirmedArt 63(1), Art 91(2)7
R0105/2025-32025-10-31Remitted (further prosecution)Art 63(1)4
R2491/2020-32024-11-26Remitted (further prosecution)Art 91(2)4
R2493/2020-32024-11-26Remitted (further prosecution)Art 91(2)4
R0469/2024-32024-09-16Closed without deciding on the meritsArt 91(2)4
R1398/2017-32019-03-20Case suspendedArt 91(2)4
R0862/2023-32024-02-28Decision confirmedArt 63(1)3