Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-08-22
R2328/2024-3
Contested design: 006857819-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs and fees in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Nichtigkeitsantragstellerin trägt die Kosten und Gebühren der Inhaberin des Geschmacksmusters im Nichtigkeits- und Beschwerdeverfahren.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Jelenia Plast sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Spoldzielcza 47, 58 500 Jelenia Gora
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Gusta Garden GmbHvia PDF extraction
Austria (AT)
Eschenweg 16, 9551 Bodensdorf
Represented by
Prior art cited (8)
display board image of a Romberg potato tower shown at a Lidl product selection event
Lidl Ausmusterung
Gusta Garden "Paul Potato" plant tower
Amazon · disclosed 2018-04-15
earlier registered planter design cited for the base shape
RCD No 295803-0003 · EUIPO database · disclosed 2005-02-14
earlier registered planter design cited for the base shape
RCD No 295803-0004 · EUIPO database · disclosed 2005-02-14
earlier German planter design cited for the base shape
German Design No M9207757-0001 · Germany · disclosed 1992-12-09
earlier German planter design cited for sidewall and tapering features
German Design No 402014000199-0001 · Germany · disclosed 2014-11-12
earlier registered planter design cited for sidewall and tapering features
RCD No 726039-0001 · EUIPO database · disclosed 2007-05-16
Keter plant tower
Amazon
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant appealed, arguing the design views were inconsistent, D1 had been disclosed at Lidl in April 2019, the features were solely technically dictated, and D2 plus D3 to D8 destroyed novelty or individual character.
- ›The holder responded that the images showed one plant-tower set, D1 was an unclear image of another product, the design features were not exclusively technical, and the cited earlier designs created different overall impressions.
- ›The Board applied Regulation 6/2002 substantively, found D1 not sufficiently proven as a disclosure, and accepted only D2, D3, D4, D7, and D8 as relevant earlier disclosures; D5 and D6 were not proven disclosed.
- ›The Board found no exclusive technical function under Article 8(1), no lack of individual character over the accepted prior art, and no identical earlier design under Article 5, so the appeal failed and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberA. Pohlmann
- RegistrarM. Chaleva
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | 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 8(1), Art 25(1)(a) | — | 9 |
| R2089/2024-3 | 2025-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 9 |
| R1395/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R1394/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R1826/2025-3 | 2026-04-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R0789/2024-3 | 2025-07-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | — | 7 |
| R0204/2024-3 | 2025-06-04 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 7(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |