Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-06-29
R1104/2025-3
Contested design: 009155203-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the design holder's costs, fixed at EUR 900 for the invalidity and appeal proceedings combined.
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. 3. Fixes the representation costs to be paid by the invalidity applicant to the design holder for the invalidity and appeal proceedings at EUR 900.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €900
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
COMPEL RAIL, a.s.via PDF extraction
SK
Martin, Slovakia
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Elektrizace železnic Praha a.s.via PDF extraction
Czechia (CZ)
Praha 4, Czech Republic
Represented by
David Műller
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Invalidity applicant (appellant) argued the seven views of the contested EUD are inconsistent — sectional views 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 do not meet CP6 requirements, the cement silo is not properly cut, and the views depict multiple different products contrary to Article 3(a) CDR.
- ›Design holder (defendant) maintained all views consistently depict the same mobile concrete plant, that views 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 are valid sectional views, and that the Office's registration examination confirmed the design's clarity.
- ›The Board found the views are consistent and represent the same installation for the production of concrete from different perspectives and sections; partial and sectional views complement the aspect views without irreconcilable contradictions; the contested EUD meets the Article 3(a) CDR definition.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity applicant ordered to bear the holder's costs, fixed at EUR 900.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberA. Pohlmann
- RegistrarE. Apaolaza Alm
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1108/2025-3 | 2026-06-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R1107/2025-3 | 2026-06-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R1528/2025-3 | 2026-03-13 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R1283/2025-3 | 2026-03-05 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R2328/2024-3 | 2025-08-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R0789/2024-3 | 2025-07-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R0538/2024-3 | 2024-12-09 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |