DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004731347-0012

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

R1396/2025-3

Contested design: 004731347-0012

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs 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

Holder · RCD owner

D. Ellinas Factory Products Ltdvia PDF extraction

CY

Limassol, Cyprus

Represented by

Konstantina Diola

Prior art cited (4)

CatalogD1⚠ rejected as evidence

air-conditioning grille / diffuser design

Titus catalogue · Titus Company, Inc. · disclosed 2014-08-12

CatalogD2

square ceiling diffuser design

Price - Air Distribution Engineering Guide · Price Industrial Limited

CatalogD3⚠ rejected as evidence

air-conditioning grille / diffuser design

price - LINEAR DIFFUSERS AND GRILLS · Price Industrial Limited · disclosed 2016-08-24

Web disclosureOther designs⚠ rejected as evidence

other square ceiling diffuser designs

Google search results for 'square ceiling diffuser' · Google · disclosed 2018-02-28

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant appealed, alleging lack of novelty and individual character over D1 to D3 and other designs, and arguing the contested design was solely dictated by technical function.
  • The design holder challenged the reliability and disclosure of the prior-art evidence and maintained that the contested design had protectable aesthetic features and differed from the cited designs.
  • The Board held that the applicant had not shown all relevant appearance features were solely dictated by technical function, so the Article 8(1) challenge failed.
  • The Board found D1, D3 and the Google search results insufficient to prove disclosure, accepted D2 as disclosed, but concluded the contested design produced a different overall impression from D2.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity applicant was ordered to bear the holder's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

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
R1318/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1826/2025-32026-04-22Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5