Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-04-28
R1392/2025-3
Contested design: 004731347-0003
Outcome
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
Annuls the contested decision. Remits the case to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution. 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
Athens, Greece
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
D. Ellinas Factory Products Ltdvia PDF extraction
CY
Limassol, Cyprus
Represented by
Konstantina Diola
Prior art cited (4)
inspection holes / access panels shown on the design holder's website, catalogue and LinkedIn post
http://dellinas.eu · Internet Archive Wayback Machine / design holder website · disclosed 2014-11-21
Knauf access panel designs D2.1 and D2.2
Knauf Access Panels catalogue · KNAUF catalogue · disclosed 2007-09-01
EUROFIRST access panel design
http://www.eurofirst.pt · Internet Archive Wayback Machine / EUROFIRST website · disclosed 2016-02-14
four web search-result entries for access ceiling panels
Google search results for 'access ceiling panel' · Google Search
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing that D1 and D3 were wrongly rejected as undisclosed and that the contested EUD lacked novelty or individual character, especially over D2 and D3.
- ›The design holder replied that the differences in frame contrast, corners and indentation gave a different overall impression and that disclosure evidence remained insufficient.
- ›The Board agreed that D1 and the Google search results did not identify a precise prior design or prove disclosure, but held that the Knauf catalogue disclosed D2.1 and D2.2 and admitted Wayback evidence proving disclosure of D3.
- ›The Board found the contested EUD retained individual character over D2.1 and D2.2, annulled the decision because D3 had not been examined on the merits, and remitted the case to the Invalidity Division.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurC. Bartos
- MemberA. Pohlmann
- 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) | — | 5 |
| R1317/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1800/2025-3 | 2026-04-27 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1027/2025-3 | 2026-02-19 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1376/2025-3 | 2026-02-06 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0093/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 4 |
| R2274/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 4 |
| R2273/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 4 |