DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008037261-0003

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-12-04

R1481/2024-3

Contested design: 008037261-0003

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

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

Gyula Szivosvia PDF extraction

Hungary (HU)

Bercsényi utca 6., 5340 Kunhegyes, Hungary

Represented by

SBGK ÜGYVÉDI IRODA

Holder · RCD owner

Nándor SZŐNYIvia PDF extraction

SK

UL.E.B. LUKÁCA 1356/36, 94501 Komárno, Slovakia

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureD1

grass grid/slab with circular openings

Facebook posts dated 2019-10-09 and 2019-11-19 · Facebook / Technoah BV · disclosed 2019-10-09

Web disclosureD2

grass grid with circular openings and half-moon-shaped connector

Facebook post dated 2019-07-30 · Facebook / Danny Coert Ko Stanthardt · disclosed 2019-07-30

Web disclosureD3

green grass grid with circular openings

Facebook post dated 2019-12-14 · Facebook / Ko Stanthardt · disclosed 2019-12-14

Web disclosureD4

grass grid/slab with circular openings

Facebook posts dated 2019-10-13, 2019-11-08 and 2019-11-23 · Facebook / 't Faan and Jelte Bosma · disclosed 2019-10-13

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 7(3)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that D1 to D4 disclosed the same slab design before filing and that the contested design lacked novelty and individual character.
  • The design holder argued that the 2019 disclosures resulted from abuse by former business partners who had access to its earlier 2012-2013 drawings, so Article 7(3) applied.
  • The Board accepted disclosure of D1 to D4 but found the overall evidence showed those designs were based on the holder’s earlier drawings and fell within the Article 7(3) abuse exception.
  • Because the prior designs could not be taken into account for novelty or individual character, the invalidity application remained unfounded and the appeal was dismissed.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
  • RapporteurG. Humphreys Bacon
  • MemberC. Negro
  • MemberA. Pohlmann
  • RegistrarK. Zajfert

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
frFrenchhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R1483/2024-32025-12-04Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 7(3)7
R1482/2024-32025-12-04Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 7(3)7
R1484/2024-32025-12-04Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 7(3)7
R0093/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2274/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2273/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1575/2025-32026-04-29Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1318/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5