Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-11-19
R1804/2024-3
Contested design: 001363220-0011
Outcome
The Board annuls the contested decision, rejects the invalidity application, and orders the invalidity applicant to pay EUR 1,700 in costs and fees.
Show verbatim operative text
Annuls the contested decision and rejects the application for a declaration of invalidity. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs and fees incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings in the total amount of EUR 1 700.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €1,700
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Gabi Jerczyński Sp. K.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Piaski 9a, 63-645 Łęka Opatowska, Poland
Holder · RCD owner
Fabryka Mebli Piaski Henryk Kaczorowski Spółka Z Ograniczoną Odpowiedzialnościąvia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Piaski 1c, 63-645 Łęka Opatowska, Poland
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
Möbelix 'Big Sofa' sofa
Möbelix GmbH catalogue and in-store display in Austria · disclosed 2012-08-25
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder appealed, arguing the Invalidity Division misassessed disclosure, ignored evidence and arguments on market saturation, and undervalued differences in the armrests and reversed colour scheme.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that the Big Sofa had been publicly disclosed through the Möbelix catalogue, in-store photographs, and witness evidence, and still created the same overall impression as the contested design.
- ›The Board admitted supplementary appeal evidence, assumed the earlier design had been disclosed, and held that sofa designers enjoy high freedom while the informed user can compare the designs side by side.
- ›It found the rounded white armrests and reversed colour contrast visually prominent enough to create a different overall impression, so the contested invalidity decision was annulled and the invalidity application rejected.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberH. Salmi
- RegistrarE. Apaolaza Alm
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 8 |
| R0422/2023-3 | 2024-03-19 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0353/2022-3 | 2023-03-10 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0050/2017-3 | 2021-12-09 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |
| R0828/2024-3 | 2025-12-05 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |
| R0173/2025-3 | 2025-10-31 | Decision confirmed | Art 6(1), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R0097/2025-3 | 2025-10-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |