Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-07-08
R0914/2024-3
Contested design: 001470041-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, the design holder is ordered to bear the costs incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings, and those costs are fixed at EUR 1 250.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal. 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings. 3. Fixes the costs to be paid by the design holder to the invalidity applicant for the invalidity and appeal proceedings at EUR 1 250.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €1,250
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Patryk Zieleźnicki trading as STRETCH CONCEPT PATRYK ZIELEŹNICKIvia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Szkolna, nr 1, lok. A, 05503 Głosków, Poland
Represented by
Kacper Kazimierz Krawczyk
Holder · RCD owner
FOLPOL ROBERT BARCZYK, JACEK CYGANvia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Mikołaja Reja 6, 05-532 Wólka Załęska, Poland
Represented by
Joanna Kluczewska-Strojny
Prior art cited (1)
stretch film having heat-sealed edges
EP 1 095 759 · European Patent Office patent database · disclosed 2004-11-17
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed, arguing that earlier unsuccessful invalidity actions, limited designer freedom for plastic foil, and differences in edge shape, overlap, layers and visibility preserved individual character.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that the earlier decisions concerned different grounds, the informed user was not limited to professionals, designer freedom was broad, and the folded-edge appearance matched the prior design.
- ›The Board held that the 2004 EPO patent disclosure was proven, the designer retained meaningful freedom, and both designs shared the dominant impression of an elongated foil sheet with two symmetrical inward folds.
- ›Minor differences in edge shape and fold width were too slight to alter the overall impression, so the contested design lacked individual character, the invalidation stood, and the appeal was dismissed with costs against the holder.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberC. Bartos
- Registrarp.o. R. Vidal Romero
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 |