Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-04-28
R1394/2025-3
Contested design: 004731347-0009
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal. 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay 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 (6)
Google image search screenshots showing similar air-conditioning grilles
Google Images
still showing slot-nozzle / HVAC grille product
YouTube video 'Titus Timeout Podcast – Flowbar Frames and Borders' · YouTube / TitusHVAC · disclosed 2014-12-05
technical catalogue excerpt of 'I. LIOLI & CO O.E. AIR GRILLES'
I. LIOLI & CO O.E. AIR GRILLES · disclosed 2017-01-01
excerpt from the invalidity applicant's 'AIRTECHNIC' catalogue
AIRTECHNIC · disclosed 2017-03-01
Google search results for 'plenum box' showing various plenum boxes
Google Search
design holder's technical catalogue for the contested product
Canyon Flowbar Systems · D. Ellinas Factory Products Ltd · disclosed 2017-01-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed only the rejection of its Article 8(1) ground, arguing that the grille, slot, V-shaped nozzle, plenum box and internal supports were all dictated by airflow, installation and material constraints.
- ›The design holder replied that the visible grille and slot retained aesthetic discretion, that alternative external configurations existed for the same internal mechanics, and that non-visible internal features could not by themselves invalidate the design.
- ›The Board held that the relevant substantive law was the CDR, identified four appearance features, and accepted that visibility is not decisive under Article 8(1), but found the applicant had not proved the linear grille with slot opening was chosen solely for technical reasons.
- ›Because at least that feature was not shown to be exclusively technically dictated, the Article 8(1) ground failed; the appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against the invalidity applicant.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1395/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R1826/2025-3 | 2026-04-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R2328/2024-3 | 2025-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R2089/2024-3 | 2025-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R0204/2024-3 | 2025-06-04 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R0029/2018-3 | 2024-09-09 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R1524/2021-3 | 2022-05-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |