DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000050117-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-03-05

R1283/2025-3

Contested design: 000050117-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs for the invalidity and appeal proceedings, fixed at EUR 900.

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, which are fixed at EUR 900.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €900

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Jiangsu Sanjo Intelligent Technology co., LTD.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

Changzhou, Jiangsu, China

Holder · RCD owner

Thetford LLCvia PDF extraction

United States (US)

Wilmington, United States

Represented by

J A Kemp France

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(a)Article 3(a)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing that inconsistent views and disclaimers prevented the contested design from clearly disclosing one unitary toilet bench under Article 3(a).
  • The design holder replied that any discrepancies were minor perspective effects in 2003 drawings and that the disclaimed features remained consistently excluded.
  • The Board held that the seven registered views were sufficiently clear and coherent, with only minor reconcilable variations that did not alter the perception of a single product.
  • The Board confirmed that the contested EUD met the definition of a design, rejected the invalidity arguments, and dismissed the appeal with costs against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
  • MemberA. Pohlmann
  • MemberS. Rizzo
  • RegistrarK. Zajfert

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R1528/2025-32026-03-13Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(a), Art 3(1)7
R0947/2025-32026-04-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(a)5
R2328/2024-32025-08-22Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(a)5
R0789/2024-32025-07-22Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(a)5
R0538/2024-32024-12-09Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(a)5
R1100/2023-32024-10-09Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(a)5
R2028/2023-32024-04-15Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(a)3
R1928/2023-32024-04-15Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(a)3