Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-08-28
R1195/2024-3
Contested design: 007549506-0001
Outcome
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
Holder · RCD owner
Zhejiang Zhengte Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
No. 811, Oriental Ave., 317004 Linhai, Zhejiang, China
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
louvered roof pergola shown in a YouTube video screenshot
YouTube · disclosed 2019-04-13
'Mirador' louvered pergola design depicted in the user manual
Mirador 3x3m User Manual · user manual · disclosed 2017-02-28
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder argued the YouTube prior design was insufficiently pleaded, not properly disclosed, and too remote from the contested louvered pergola to negate individual character.
- ›It also claimed the designer’s freedom was limited and that differences in the crank handle, pillar bases, rounded corners, and louver profiles created a different overall impression.
- ›The invalidity applicant filed no reply on appeal; the Board relied on the existing record and found the prior design had been sufficiently identified and publicly disclosed on YouTube before filing.
- ›The Board held designer freedom remained broad, the asserted differences were minor, and both designs produced the same overall impression on the informed user.
- ›The appeal was dismissed, the invalidity decision was confirmed, and the design holder was ordered to bear the costs and fees of both instances.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurC. Bartos
- MemberA. Pohlmann
- RegistrarE. Apaolaza Alm
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 |