Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-05-28
R2360/2025-3
Contested design: 008624837-0003
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the design holder is ordered to bear the invalidity applicant's costs and fees 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
Marta Kaliszewska-Haśkavia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Nowy Dwór Mazowiecki, Poland
Represented by
Magdalena Tarała
Holder · RCD owner
Anna Krystyniakvia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Warszawa, Poland
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
necklace with crescent moon-shaped pendant with openwork ornamental filigree pattern in gold colour
https://www.instagram.com/p/BFliqbEGMlf · Instagram · disclosed 2016-05-19
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Design holder (appellant) argued that a single Instagram screenshot is insufficient to prove disclosure, the image was of poor quality preventing valid comparison, design freedom is limited for crescent jewellery, and the hanging star distinguishes the contested design.
- ›Invalidity applicant argued Instagram disclosure is established (870 likes, public URL), image quality is sufficient, design freedom is broad in jewellery, and additional elements in the prior design should be disregarded in the comparison.
- ›The Board upheld disclosure (Instagram post publicly accessible, 870 likes, holder failed to establish restricted access), found designer's freedom broad, and concluded the designs are near-identical in crescent form, openwork ornamental pattern and symmetrical decorative motifs.
- ›The appeal was dismissed; the holder bears the applicant's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberS. Rizzo
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2528/2025-3 | 2026-06-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1106/2025-3 | 2026-06-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0093/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2274/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2273/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1575/2025-3 | 2026-04-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1395/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1394/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |