R0175/2025-3

• ›The design holder argued the comparison relied on poor miniatures, the informed user is highly attentive, the visible profile differences create a distinct overall impression, and the applicant's rights in the prior design were not examined.
• ›The invalidity applicant replied that the contested REUD copies its earlier profile, disclosed at least by its 2013 catalogue and other evidence, and submitted a Munich court decision supporting that position.
• ›The Board held that substantive validity is governed by the CDR, and that page 32 of the 2013 catalogue sufficiently proved public disclosure of the prior design before the contested filing date.
• ›With average designer freedom, the Board found only minor curvature differences and the same asymmetric structure, curved sections, and rectangular extension, so both designs create the same overall impression.
• ›The appeal was dismissed, the REUD remained invalid for lack of individual character, and the design holder was ordered to bear the invalidity applicant's costs and fees.

• ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
• RapporteurA. Pohlmann
• MemberH. Salmi
• RegistrarK. Zajfert

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