DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008866115-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-09-22

R0536/2025-3

Contested design: 008866115-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

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(de)

1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Nichtigkeitsantragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin des Unionsgeschmacksmusters im Nichtigkeits- und Beschwerdeverfahren.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Liebscher & Bracht Schmerzfrei GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Kaiser-Friedrich-Promenade 111, 61348 Bad Homburg v.d. Höhe, Deutschland

Holder · RCD owner

AllMates GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Otto-Hahn-Straße 20, 61381 Friedrichsdorf, Deutschland

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosureD1

older sports equipment product design

Amazon · disclosed 2021-04-18

Web disclosureD2

older sports equipment product design

Amazon · disclosed 2021-04-18

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5(1)(b)Article 5(2)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing the contested design reproduced all impression-dominant features of D1 and D2 and lacked novelty.
  • It also argued the original invalidity request covered lack of individual character because Article 25(1)(b) refers generally to Articles 4 to 9 CDR.
  • The holder requested dismissal, maintaining the case had been pleaded only on novelty and that the cited designs differed in visible, material features.
  • The Board held the invalidity request was limited to Article 5 CDR and found the contested design not identical to D1 or D2 because of side recesses, marbling, and a different top structure.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity applicant was ordered to bear the holder's costs in both instances.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
  • RapporteurC. Bartos
  • MemberE. Fink
  • RegistrarK. Zajfert

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0538/2025-32025-09-22Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2063/2021-32022-07-19Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0363/2021-32022-07-19Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0051/2017-32021-12-09Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1855/2020-32021-07-02Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1856/2020-32021-06-30Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2837/2019-32020-11-12Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1243/2017-32020-06-22Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5