Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-10-31
R0105/2025-3
Contested design: 008837884-0004
Outcome
The contested decision is annulled, the case is remitted to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution, and each party must bear its own costs and fees incurred in the appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision. 2. Remits the case to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution. 3. Orders each party to bear its own costs and fees incurred in the appeal proceedings.
CostsEach party bears its own costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
KCT GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Robert-Bosch-Str. 30, 72348 Rosenfeld, Germany
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Radosław Prybavia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Kolejowa 15, 67-300 Szprotawa, Poland
Prior art cited (1)
handrail profile of the invalidity applicant's ISR sun visor/window blind product
profile P03673 · technical drawing, AWW invoices, photographs, and KCT catalogue/website evidence · disclosed 2007-01-16
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing that its ISR handrail profile P03673 had been publicly disclosed before 21 January 2022 through its drawing, supplier invoices, photographs, and catalogue/website material.
- ›The design holder argued that disclosure to specialised circles was not proven and that visible differences in proportions, grip thickening, and surface finish preserved novelty and individual character.
- ›The Board admitted the additional appeal evidence, linked the 2005 drawing to AWW invoices for profile 03673 and corroborating photographs, and found prior disclosure proven under Article 7(1).
- ›Because the first-instance decision had not assessed novelty and individual character against that proven prior design, the Board annulled the rejection and remitted the case; each party bears its own appeal costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurA. Pohlmann
- MemberH. Salmi
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1157/2024-3 | 2025-06-23 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(1) | — | 4 |
| R1156/2024-3 | 2025-06-23 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(1) | — | 4 |
| R1158/2024-3 | 2025-06-23 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(1) | — | 4 |
| R0861/2023-3 | 2024-02-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(1) | — | 2 |
| R0862/2023-3 | 2024-02-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(1) | — | 2 |
| R1821/2022-3 | 2023-12-04 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(1) | — | 2 |
| R2444/2020-3 | 2023-05-15 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(1) | — | 2 |
| R2486/2019-3 | 2021-01-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(1) | — | 2 |