Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-12-04
R1482/2024-3
Contested design: 008037261-0004
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs incurred by the design holder 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
Holder · RCD owner
Nándor SZŐNYIvia PDF extraction
SK
UL.E.B. LUKÁCA 1356/36, 94501 Komárno, Slovakia
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
grass grid / slab with circular openings published on Technoah BV Facebook posts
https://www.facebook.com/113886545376422/photos/a.657718650993206/2819675434797506/ · Facebook (Technoah BV account) · disclosed 2019-10-09
Pro-Techno 1000x1000x65mm grass grid shown on Danny Coert Ko Stanthardt Facebook post
Facebook (Danny Coert Ko Stanthardt account) · disclosed 2019-07-30
green grass grid / slab with circular openings shown on Ko Stanthardt Facebook post
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2646097305472330&id=100002162590575&set=a.336746656407418&source=57&refid=52&__tn__=EH-R · Facebook (Ko Stanthardt account) · disclosed 2019-12-14
grass grid / slab with circular openings shown on tfaan.nl and Jelte Bosma Facebook posts
https://www.facebook.com/tfaan.nl · Facebook (tfaan.nl and Jelte Bosma accounts) · disclosed 2019-10-13
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that Facebook-disclosed prior designs D1 to D4 anticipated the contested slab design, that colour differences were immaterial, and that the edge connectors were purely functional.
- ›The design holder replied that D1 to D4 were disclosures by former business partners and related parties who had become aware of his 2012-2013 circular-grid drawings, so Article 7(3) EUDR excluded them.
- ›The Board accepted public disclosure of D1 to D4 but found the evidence and surrounding relationships showed those designs were based on the holder's earlier drawings and were not independently created.
- ›Because Article 7(3) EUDR prevented D1 to D4 from being invoked against the contested REUD, the Board did not assess novelty or individual character further and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- MemberC. Negro
- MemberA. Pohlmann
- RegistrarK. Zajfert
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1483/2024-3 | 2025-12-04 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 7(3) | — | 7 |
| R1484/2024-3 | 2025-12-04 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 7(3) | — | 7 |
| R1481/2024-3 | 2025-12-04 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 7(3) | — | 7 |
| 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 |
| R1318/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |