Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-02-19
R1027/2025-3
Contested design: 015013606-0002
Outcome
The appeal is upheld, the contested decision is annulled, the case is remitted to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution, and each party bears its own appeal costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision. 2. Remits the case to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution. 3. Orders each party to bear its own costs and fees incurred in the appeal proceedings.
CostsEach party bears its own costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Portas Arcuense - Fábrica de Portas Seccionadasvia PDF extraction
Portugal (PT)
Parque Industrial de Padreiro, Lote 13, 4970-500 Arcos de Valdevez, Portugal
Represented by
Joana Jorge Cerqueira
Holder · RCD owner
MOTORLINE ELECTROCELOS, S.A.via PDF extraction
Portugal (PT)
Travessa do Sobreiro, n.º 29, Lugar do Pinheiro, 4755-474 BARCELOS, Portugal
Represented by
Prior art cited (10)
MC1 control board
ASIN B06XD5GZ69 · Amazon · disclosed 2017-03-02
control board shown on Oxygen Automation Facebook pages
control board shown on Maker Movement Facebook page
SEAC LRS 2102 New Electronic box for sliding door
ASIN B07ZJYXDC2 · Amazon · disclosed 2019-10-25
control board shown in a YouTube video still
YouTube · disclosed 2014-11-02
control board shown in YouTube video stills
YouTube · disclosed 2017-05-10
control board shown in a YouTube video still
YouTube · disclosed 2019-04-14
control board shown in a YouTube video still
YouTube · disclosed 2020-06-16
L1 control board
L1 Central Automateasy · Automateasy.es · disclosed 2012-10-11
control panel shown on Alibaba
VG-DRC-S7-102 · Alibaba
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed the rejection of its invalidity action, arguing the contested EUD lacked novelty and individual character over earlier control-board designs disclosed online.
- ›The design holder asked for dismissal, disputing the quality and admissibility of parts of the prior-art evidence and maintaining that the contested design created a different overall impression.
- ›The Board admitted the supplementary appeal evidence, confirmed disclosure for D1, D2, D9 and D10, and additionally found disclosure established for D3 and D5 to D8, but not D4.
- ›The Board still found the contested EUD sufficiently different from D1, D2, D9 and D10, annulled the decision because additional disclosed prior designs had not been examined, and remitted the case.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberA. Pohlmann
- RegistrarK. Zajfert
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1317/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1392/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1393/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1800/2025-3 | 2026-04-27 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1376/2025-3 | 2026-02-06 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2273/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 4 |
| R0093/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 4 |
| R2274/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 4 |