Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-10-31
R0173/2025-3
Contested design: 008837884-0002
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's costs and fees in both instances.
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
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 (6)
sun visor for vehicles
http:///www.kctechnik.com/em/blinds.html · Wayback Machine Internet Archive · disclosed 2013-03-03
sun visor for vehicles
KCT product catalogue (2013) · KCT GmbH & Co. KG catalogue
dual-paned glass window incl. insect-screen and sunshade
Invoice dated 19 January 2021 · Invoice issued by KCT GmbH & Co. KG · disclosed 2021-01-19
pages 180-182 referring to KCT products and competitors' products
Ulrich Dolde Motorhome self-build and optimization, Dolce Vita Publishing, 2017 · Dolce Vita Publishing
insect and sun roller blind
ISR K5 M/S · Invoice issued by KCT GmbH & Co. KG · disclosed 2006-10-16
screenshot from video with active hyperlink
Video titled 'KCT'
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed, arguing the prior-design images were too poor for comparison and that differences in profile, materials, colours and handles produced a different overall impression.
- ›The design holder also argued the shared features were technically dictated or commonplace and said the Invalidity Division should have examined the invalidity applicant's rights in the prior design.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that the contested design copied its earlier sun visor and asked for dismissal of the appeal, also filing a German national court decision.
- ›The Board found the 2013 Wayback Machine capture and catalogue proved disclosure, the informed user would see the same overall impression, and the asserted differences were minor or not visible in the registered representations.
- ›The appeal was dismissed, so the invalidity of the contested design for lack of individual character remained in place and the design holder was ordered to bear 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0171/2025-3 | 2025-09-23 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R0029/2022-3 | 2022-08-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 7 |
| R1804/2024-3 | 2025-11-19 | Decision annulled | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R0093/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2274/2025-3 | 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 |