Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-03-13
R1528/2025-3
Contested design: 000050125-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs in 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
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Thetford LLCvia PDF extraction
United States (US)
Wilmington, United States
Represented by
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing that the seven views contain material inconsistencies in lines, disclaimers and shape, so the contested design does not disclose one unitary product under Articles 25(1)(a) and 3(a).
- ›The holder replied that any differences are minor drawing or perspective variations in a 2003 paper-filed design; broken lines consistently disclaim unclaimed features and the views still show one portable holding tank.
- ›The Board held that the registered views must be assessed as filed, though product images may illustrate them; the alleged discrepancies can be reconciled and do not contradict the claimed shape or disclaimer use.
- ›The appeal was dismissed, the first-instance rejection of invalidity was confirmed, and the invalidity applicant was ordered to reimburse EUR 900 in costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- MemberA. Pohlmann
- MemberS. Rizzo
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1283/2025-3 | 2026-03-05 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a), Art 3(1) | — | 7 |
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R2328/2024-3 | 2025-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R0789/2024-3 | 2025-07-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R0538/2024-3 | 2024-12-09 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R1100/2023-3 | 2024-10-09 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R2028/2023-3 | 2024-04-15 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 3 |
| R1928/2023-3 | 2024-04-15 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 3 |