DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004731347-0007

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

R1318/2025-3

Contested design: 004731347-0007

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant in 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

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 (2)

PublicationD1⚠ rejected as evidence

air-conditioning grille shown in an ECOTHERMIKI leaflet extract

ECOTHERMIKI leaflet

CatalogD2

linear bar grille / air-conditioning grille

Air Master Equipments Emirates LLC catalogue 'LINEAR BAR GRILLES'

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The design holder appealed, arguing that disclosure of D2 was not objectively proven, that the Invalidity Division overlooked important visual differences, and that the decision lacked sufficient reasoning.
  • The invalidity applicant replied that the Air Master catalogue and file metadata proved pre-filing disclosure of D2, that the registered views controlled the comparison, and that the first-instance reasoning was adequate.
  • The Board held that the 2011 Air Master catalogue established disclosure of D2 under Article 7(1) and that the holder had not shown why specialised EU circles could not reasonably have known it.
  • Comparing the registered design with D2, the Board found the common elongated rectangular frame, three grille sections, two vertical bars, and thin parallel slats decisive; differences in section width and slat count were minor.
  • The appeal was dismissed; the invalidity finding for lack of individual character was confirmed and the design holder was ordered to bear the invalidity and appeal costs.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
  • RapporteurC. Bartos
  • MemberA. Pohlmann
  • 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
R0093/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2274/2025-32026-05-18Decision 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
R1396/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1826/2025-32026-04-22Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5