Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-10-31
R0106/2025-3
Contested design: 008837884-0001
Outcome
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
1. Dismisses the appeal. 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay 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 (4)
sun visor / insect screen and roller blind shown on the applicant's website and in its 2013 catalogue
www.kctechnik.com/em/blinds.html; KCT 2013 product catalogue, page 16 · Wayback Machine Internet Archive; KCT 2013 product catalogue · disclosed 2013-03-03
screenshots of products embedded in the invalidity statement
Videos titled “KCT” and “RV window security” · alleged online video screenshots
photographs allegedly taken by the applicant's representative on 12 January 2022 showing a window
private photographs submitted with the invalidity statement
window and blind with a black border supported on appeal by photographs and four affidavits
appeal-stage photographs and affidavits
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing that its earlier website, catalogue, invoices, videos, photographs, and new appeal evidence proved prior disclosure and invalidated the contested design.
- ›The design holder replied that the additional evidence did not prove public disclosure and that the contested vehicle-window design created a different overall impression.
- ›The Board held that only the website capture and 2013 catalogue proved disclosure of the prior design; the remaining annexes and new appeal evidence were insufficient or inadmissibly late.
- ›Because the disclosed prior design did not defeat novelty or individual character, the Board dismissed the appeal and awarded costs against the invalidity applicant.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurA. Pohlmann
- MemberH. Salmi
- RegistrarM. Chaleva
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 ↗ |