Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-02-19
R1067/2025-3
Contested design: 015013606-0004
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must bear the invalidity and appeal costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant.
Show verbatim operative text
Dismisses the appeal. Orders the design holder to bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsHolder ordered to pay 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 (1)
control board
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Seav-Electronic-Automation-Swinging-Integrated/dp/B06XY7HL7C · Amazon · disclosed 2017-04-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder argued that the informed user is a trained electrician or electrical engineer, technical constraints restrict design freedom, and small differences create a different overall impression.
- ›The invalidity applicant filed no observations in reply on appeal.
- ›The Board endorsed the Amazon disclosure dated 1 April 2017, found the informed user is not a technical expert, and held the alleged constraints and market saturation were not proven.
- ›The Board found the shared board layout and component arrangement dominated the overall impression, while the corner component and small-hole differences were too minor to matter.
- ›The appeal was dismissed, the invalidity finding for lack of individual character stood, and the design holder was ordered to bear the costs and fees.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2274/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0093/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| 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 |
| R1395/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1394/2025-3 | 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 |