Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-12-04
R1484/2024-3
Contested design: 008037261-0002
Outcome
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
Dismisses the appeal. 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 and rectangular connectors
Facebook posts dated 2019-10-09 and 2019-11-19 · Facebook · disclosed 2019-10-09
grass grid/slab with circular openings and half-moon-shaped connectors
Facebook post dated 2019-07-30 · Facebook · disclosed 2019-07-30
green grass grid/slab with circular openings
Facebook post dated 2019-12-14 · Facebook · disclosed 2019-12-14
grass grid/slab with circular openings sold by Technoah distributors
Facebook posts dated 2019-10-13, 2019-11-08 and 2019-11-23 · Facebook · disclosed 2019-10-13
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing D1 to D4 were valid prior disclosures and that the design holder had not proved self-disclosure or abusive disclosure under Article 7(3).
- ›The design holder replied that the cited 2019 Facebook disclosures derived from his 2012-2013 circular-grid drawings and fell within the 12-month abuse exception.
- ›The Board accepted disclosure of D1 to D4, including D2's Facebook post, but found the overall evidence showed those designs stemmed from the holder's earlier drawings shared through longstanding business relationships.
- ›Because D1 to D4 were treated as abusive disclosures under Article 7(3), they could not defeat novelty or individual character, so the invalidity application remained rejected and the appeal failed.
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 |
| R1482/2024-3 | 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 |