Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-12-15
R1604/2023-3
Contested design: 000096102-0005
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
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
Trilatec GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Forsthausstraße 10, 66663 Merzig, Germany
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Eltete Tpm OYvia PDF extraction
Finland (FI)
Purokatu 4, FI-07900 Loviisa, Finland
Prior art cited (3)
international patent application showing a pallet-foot embodiment
WO 94/02366 · WIPO · disclosed 1994-02-03
international patent application showing a pallet-foot embodiment
WO 95/20526 · WIPO · disclosed 1995-08-03
US patent showing a pallet-foot embodiment
US 3,881,429 · United States · disclosed 1975-05-06
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing the contested design lacked novelty and individual character over D1, D2 and D6 and that the Division misidentified the design's features and designer freedom.
- ›The design holder sought dismissal, arguing Article 8(1) was already settled, the appellant's reconstructions and new feature theories were inadmissible, and the contested design created a different overall impression.
- ›The Board held the appeal was limited to Article 25(1)(b) with Articles 4(1), 5 and 6 against D1, D2 and D6, and that prior Board findings on Article 8(1) could not be reopened.
- ›Comparing the registered design with each prior design, the Board found visible differences, especially the overlapping upper covering part, sufficient to preserve novelty and individual character, so the appeal failed.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberH. Salmi
- RegistrarR. Vidal Romero
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| R0093/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1575/2025-3 | 2026-04-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1394/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1395/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1318/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1396/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |