DesignVerdict
← Back to search
Contested design 015056246-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-06-16

R1420/2025-3

Contested design: 015056246-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal upheld (reversal)

The contested decision is annulled and the case is remitted to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution; each party bears its own costs in the appeal proceedings.

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

Wojciech Cisowskivia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Kraków, Poland

Represented by

Łukasz Kasprzyk

Holder · RCD owner

MARTOMvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Świdnica, Poland

Represented by

Anna Giercarz

Prior art cited (13)

Web disclosureD1

bird scarer (raven decoy) from website www.odstraszanie.pl

https://archiwum.odstraszanie.pl (Wayback Machine, archived 21 September 2020) · Wayback Machine archive of www.odstraszanie.pl · disclosed 2020-09-21

Web disclosureD2

bird scarer (raven decoy)

https://archiwum.allegro.pl, offer ending 26 May 2019 · Allegro archive · disclosed 2019-05-26

Web disclosureD3

bird scarer (raven decoy)

https://archiwum.allegro.pl, offer ending 29 April 2020 · Allegro archive · disclosed 2020-04-29

Web disclosureD4

bird scarer (raven decoy)

https://archiwum.allegro.pl, offer ending 8 January 2015 · Allegro archive · disclosed 2015-01-08

Web disclosureD5

bird scarer (raven decoy)

https://archiwum.allegro.pl, offer ending 22 February 2015 · Allegro archive · disclosed 2015-02-22

Web disclosureD6

bird scarer (raven decoy)

https://archiwum.allegro.pl, offer ending 2 March 2015 · Allegro archive · disclosed 2015-03-02

Web disclosureD7

bird scarer (raven decoy)

https://archiwum.allegro.pl, offer ending 21 March 2015 · Allegro archive · disclosed 2015-03-21

Web disclosureD8

bird scarer (raven decoy)

https://archiwum.allegro.pl, offer ending 9 March 2015 · Allegro archive · disclosed 2015-03-09

Web disclosureD9

bird scarer (raven decoy)

https://archiwum.allegro.pl, offer ending 25 March 2015 · Allegro archive · disclosed 2015-03-25

Web disclosureD10

bird scarer (raven decoy)

https://archiwum.allegro.pl, offer ending 26 March 2015 · Allegro archive · disclosed 2015-03-26

Web disclosureD11⚠ rejected as evidence

bird scarers shown on Trade Watch sales report website

Trade Watch application printout, 1 June 2017 – 30 September 2017 · Trade Watch application

Web disclosureD12

bird scarer 'KADAX Black Raven' (raven decoy)

www.amazon.de, ASIN B07CHTXRFV, available from 18 April 2018 · Amazon.de · disclosed 2018-04-18

Web disclosureD13

bird scarer (raven decoy)

www.amazon.de, ASIN B07DK31CN1, available from 29 February 2016 · Amazon.de · disclosed 2016-02-29

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5(1)(b)Article 5(2)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • Invalidity applicant (appellant) argued the contested EUD is not new in relation to D13 (colour difference due to lighting, posture/tail-gap due to camera angle, base difference purely technical) and that D1–D10 and D12 were not adequately assessed for novelty despite only one view being shown.
  • Design holder (defendant) did not file observations on appeal; at first instance it argued the screenshot designs differ in posture, beak size and feather structure from the contested EUD.
  • The Board found the contested EUD new vs D13 (base indentation, wing shape/structure, eye/beak and posture differences are material) and new vs D2–D10 and D12 (undisclosed views may differ; visible differences already apparent); D11 disclosure not proven.
  • The appeal was upheld: the Board admitted supplementary Wayback Machine and Amazon evidence for D1 and D12 and remitted the case for assessment of novelty in relation to D1 and D12 with those additional views; each party bears its own appeal costs.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
  • RapporteurH. Salmi
  • MemberA. González Fernández
  • 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
R2112/2025-32026-06-29Remitted (further prosecution)Art 25(1)(b)5
R2046/2025-32026-06-19Remitted (further prosecution)Art 25(1)(b)5
R2047/2025-32026-06-19Remitted (further prosecution)Art 25(1)(b)5
R1392/2025-32026-04-28Remitted (further prosecution)Art 25(1)(b)5
R1393/2025-32026-04-28Remitted (further prosecution)Art 25(1)(b)5
R1317/2025-32026-04-28Remitted (further prosecution)Art 25(1)(b)5
R1800/2025-32026-04-27Remitted (further prosecution)Art 25(1)(b)5
R1027/2025-32026-02-19Remitted (further prosecution)Art 25(1)(b)5