DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006778205-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-08-28

R0721/2024-3

Contested design: 006778205-0001

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must 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

PatentEnter s.r.o.via PDF extraction

Czechia (CZ)

Koliště 1965/13a, 60200 Brno-Černá pole, Czech Republic

Represented by

PatentEnter s.r.o.

Holder · RCD owner

Zhejiang Zhengte Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

No. 811, Oriental Ave., 317004 Linhai, Zhejiang, China

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosure

louvered roof pergola shown in a YouTube video

youtube.com/watch · YouTube · disclosed 2018-12-13

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character over an earlier louvered pergola disclosed in a YouTube video.
  • The design holder challenged the prior design’s pleading and disclosure, argued limited designer freedom, and relied on differences in proportions, screws, crank handle and louvers.
  • The Board found the prior design sufficiently argued and publicly disclosed, and held the designer retained meaningful freedom for louvered pergolas.
  • The shared rectangular frame, pillars and parallel louvers dominated the overall impression; the appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
  • RapporteurC. Bartos
  • MemberA. Pohlmann
  • RegistrarK. Zajfert

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)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
R2274/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0093/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2273/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1575/2025-32026-04-29Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1395/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1394/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1318/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1396/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5