DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015046863-0005

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-03-30

R1855/2025-3

Contested design: 015046863-0005

CDRAppellant: holdermedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's costs and fees in both the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Dismisses the appeal. 2. 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

GrainGold Sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Świba, Poland

Represented by

Piotr Krajewski

Holder · RCD owner

Selsey sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Wrocław, Poland

Represented by

Katarzyna Krzywobłocka

Prior art cited (1)

Catalog

ELTAP 2022 catalogue showing the Edvige bed on page 50

Katalog łóżek Eltap 2022 beds catalogue ELTAP 2022

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6(1)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The design holder argued that convex vertical modules, softer contours and 45-degree joints gave the contested bed a different overall impression from the prior design.
  • The invalidity applicant replied that both beds shared the same upholstered modular concept and that the cited differences were minor stylistic variations.
  • The Board confirmed disclosure of the ELTAP 2022 catalogue, found high designer freedom for upholstered platform beds, and assessed the informed user as attentive but not expert.
  • It held that the common padded modular structure, full-width headboard and segmented upholstered base dominated the overall impression, so the contested EUD lacked individual character.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the design holder was ordered to bear the costs of both instances.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
  • RapporteurH. Salmi
  • MemberA. González Fernández
  • RegistrarE. Wagner

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
R2274/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0093/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2273/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1575/2025-32026-04-29Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1395/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1394/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1318/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1396/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5