DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004731347-0004

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

R1393/2025-3

Contested design: 004731347-0004

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal upheld (reversal)

The Board annulled the contested decision, remitted the case to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution on D3, and ordered each party to bear its own appeal costs and fees.

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

Athens, Greece

Holder · RCD owner

D. Ellinas Factory Products Ltdvia PDF extraction

CY

Limassol, Cyprus

Represented by

Konstantina Diola

Prior art cited (3)

CatalogD1

inspection hole / access panel shown in the design holder's 'P.V.C. products 2015' catalogue

design holder's 'P.V.C. products 2015' catalogue

CatalogD2

inspection hole / access panel shown in the 'KNAUF Drywall Systems' catalogue

KNAUF Drywall Systems catalogue

Web disclosureD3

inspection hole / access panel shown in the EUROFIRST leaflet and archived webpage

http://www.eurofirst.pt · Internet Archive Wayback Machine / eurofirst.pt · disclosed 2016-02-14

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5Article 6Article 7(1)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant appealed the rejection, arguing the contested inspection-hole design lacked novelty over D1, lacked individual character over D2 and D3, and was solely dictated by technical function.
  • The design holder disputed disclosure and authenticity of the prior-art evidence, maintained the design remained new and distinctive, and argued its appearance was not exclusively functional.
  • The Board agreed with the Invalidity Division that the Article 8(1) attack failed and that D1 and D2 did not invalidate the contested design, but it admitted additional appeal-stage evidence for D3.
  • The Board found disclosure of D3 proven, annulled the contested decision, and remitted the case because individual character over D3 had not yet been examined at first instance.

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
R1800/2025-32026-04-27Remitted (further prosecution)Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R1395/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)6
R1394/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)6
R1826/2025-32026-04-22Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)6
R0947/2025-32026-04-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)6
R2328/2024-32025-08-22Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)6
R2089/2024-32025-08-22Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)6
R0204/2024-32025-06-04Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)6