Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-02-19
R1082/2025-3
Contested design: 015039369-0011
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
Novoferm tormatic GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Eisenhüttenweg 6, 44145 Dortmund, Germany
Holder · RCD owner
Suzhou Bimeng Technology Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
Room 3045, Building 2, No. 61, Yingchun South Road, Economic Development Zone, Wuzhong District, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, China
Represented by
Krzysztof Breguła
Prior art cited (2)
handheld transmitter / wireless remote control
Brochure '3. Ausgabe 2007'; alleged trade fair exhibits; statutory declaration; Internet Archive extract
handheld transmitter / wireless remote control
Brochure '3. Ausgabe 2007'; alleged trade fair exhibits; statutory declaration; Internet Archive extract
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing that the brochure, trade-fair photographs, Messe Stuttgart letter, statutory declaration and Wayback Machine extract cumulatively proved disclosure of prior designs D1 and D2 before the contested EUD's filing date.
- ›The design holder filed no reply in the appeal proceedings and had also not defended the invalidity application at first instance.
- ›The Board admitted the supplementary evidence on appeal but held that the brochure, photographs, trade-fair letter, declaration and web archive extract still did not objectively establish public disclosure under Article 7(1).
- ›The Board added that novelty would fail in any event because the prior designs lacked disclosed rear or side views needed for an objective identity comparison, so the appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against the invalidity applicant.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberC. Negro
- 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 |