DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004731347-0005

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-04-28

R1317/2025-3

Contested design: 004731347-0005

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal upheld (reversal)

The appeal is upheld, the contested decision is annulled, the case is remitted to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution, and each party bears its own appeal costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Annuls the contested decision. 2. Remits the case to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution. 3. Orders each party to bear its own costs and fees incurred in the appeal proceedings.

CostsEach party bears its own costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Airtechnic - Chatzoudis Etaireia Periorismenis Euthynisvia PDF extraction

GR

Nea Chalkidona, Athens, Greece

Holder · RCD owner

D. Ellinas Factory Products Ltdvia PDF extraction

CY

Limassol, Cyprus

Represented by

Konstantina Diola

Prior art cited (1)

Catalog

prior linear grille for air conditioning

P.V.C. Products 2015 · D. ELLINAS Factory Products Ltd catalogue · disclosed 2015-12-31

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5(1)(b)Article 5(2)Article 7(1)Article 4(1)

Argument summary

  • The design holder appealed, arguing that disclosure of the 2015 catalogue was unproven and that the prior grille differed in visible divisions, slats, corner details and framing.
  • The invalidity applicant replied that the design holder's own 2015 catalogue sufficiently proved disclosure and that any differences were minor variations within the same linear-grille layout.
  • The Board held the catalogue was sufficient objective evidence of disclosure before 28 February 2018, and the design holder had not rebutted the Article 7(1) presumption.
  • The Board found the extra vertical division, higher slat count and corner circles were perceptible structural differences, so the prior design was not identical and novelty under Article 5 was preserved.
  • The appeal was allowed, the invalidity decision annulled, and the case remitted for examination of the remaining invalidity grounds, with each party bearing its own appeal costs.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
  • RapporteurC. Bartos
  • MemberA. Pohlmann
  • Registrarp.o. E. 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
R1392/2025-32026-04-28Remitted (further prosecution)Art 25(1)(b)5
R1393/2025-32026-04-28Remitted (further prosecution)Art 25(1)(b)5
R1800/2025-32026-04-27Remitted (further prosecution)Art 25(1)(b)5
R1027/2025-32026-02-19Remitted (further prosecution)Art 25(1)(b)5
R1376/2025-32026-02-06Remitted (further prosecution)Art 25(1)(b)5
R0093/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)4
R2274/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)4
R2273/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)4