Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-07-22
R0789/2024-3
Contested design: 002083709-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Gabo Systemtechnik GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Am Schaidweg 7, 94559 Niederwinkling, Germany
Holder · RCD owner
Filoform B.V.via PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
De Kraaldert 2, 4191 PH Geldermalsen, Netherlands
Represented by
Prior art cited (5)
Extract from the catalogue 'ISP Fibre Optic Networks FILOform' showing the cable seal design
Filoform catalogue
Screenshot from the design holder's website showing the cable seal product
www.filoform.com · www.filoform.com
Screenshot from a competitor website showing cable seals
Screenshot from a competitor website showing cable seals
Patent application for a protective plastic pipe end fitting system and method
WO 2020/204699 A1 · disclosed 2020-03-19
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing the contested design was not a single design, lacked novelty because of an earlier Filoform catalogue disclosure, and was solely dictated by technical function.
- ›The design holder asked for dismissal, maintaining the registration showed one unitary product, the catalogue was not proven public before the grace period, and the product's features reflected design choice rather than pure technical necessity.
- ›The Board held Article 6 was outside the pleaded scope, found the registered views showed a single unitary product, and ruled the catalogue extract did not prove public disclosure before 3 August 2011.
- ›The Board also found the applicant had not shown that all appearance features were solely dictated by technical function, so the invalidity claims failed and the appeal was dismissed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberC. Bartos
- RegistrarK. Zajfert
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | — | 7 |
| R2328/2024-3 | 2025-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | — | 7 |
| R0538/2024-3 | 2024-12-09 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | — | 7 |
| 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 |
| R1396/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |