Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-04-27
R1800/2025-3
Contested design: 001096457-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed on the Article 8 ground, the contested decision is partially annulled and remitted for further prosecution on the Article 6 ground, and each party bears its own appeal costs.
Show verbatim operative text
Dismisses the appeal with reference to the ground of invalidity based on Article 25(1)(b) EUDR, in conjunction with Article 8 EUDR. Partially annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution of the request for a declaration of invalidity based on Article 25(1)(b) EUDR in conjunction with Article 6 EUDR. Orders each party to bear its own costs in the appeal proceedings.
CostsEach party bears its own costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Elysium Laboratories Korlátolt Felelősségű Társaságvia PDF extraction
Hungary (HU)
Budapest, Hungary
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
György Ranyákvia PDF extraction
Hungary (HU)
Budapest, Hungary
Represented by
Prior art cited (13)
REUD No 196 035-0001 · disclosed 2005-03-08
D0 900 015-0001 · disclosed 2019-04-29
D0 900 015-0002 · disclosed 2019-04-29
D0 900 015-0003 · disclosed 2019-04-29
D0 900 015-0004 · disclosed 2019-04-29
D0 900 015-0005 · disclosed 2019-04-29
D9 700 619-0001 · disclosed 2003-02-28
D0 400 006-0001 · disclosed 2024-06-28
D0 400 006-0002 · disclosed 2024-06-28
D0 900 062-0001 · disclosed 2024-08-28
D1 300 209-0001 · disclosed 2024-06-28
Csöpi nasal aspirator
http://ranyakuveg.hu · Internet Archive · disclosed 2007-07-28
Aspiration apparatus for body secretions (in particular nasal mucosa)
AT 404 555 B · Austria · disclosed 1998-12-28
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested breathing-device design was wholly dictated by technical function and, alternatively, lacked individual character over D11 and earlier designs D1, D7 and D8a.
- ›The design holder filed no observations before the Board and had not defended the invalidity application before the Invalidity Division.
- ›The Board held that the applicant had not proved all appearance features were exclusively functional, so the Article 8(1) invalidity ground failed.
- ›The Board found the Invalidity Division overlooked several earlier rights invoked for Article 6 and failed to give adequate reasons on that ground.
- ›The appeal therefore succeeded only in part: the Article 8 ruling was upheld, the Article 6 part was annulled and remitted, and each party bore its own appeal costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberA. González Fernández
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1393/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R1395/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 6 |
| R1394/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 6 |
| R1826/2025-3 | 2026-04-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 6 |
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 6 |
| R2328/2024-3 | 2025-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 6 |
| R2089/2024-3 | 2025-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 6 |
| R0204/2024-3 | 2025-06-04 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 6 |