Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-06-29
R1106/2025-3
Contested design: 009155203-0002
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 that the seven views of the contested EUD (a stoneware carriage) are inconsistent — views 2.4 and 2.6 do not meet CP6 sectional-view requirements, view 2.6 is ambiguous and inconsistent with view 2.4 (stoneware vessels absent), views 2.1/2.3/2.4 show inconsistent roof curvature, and view 2.2 cannot be a partial view as it depicts the whole product.
- ›Design holder (defendant) maintained all views consistently represent the same stoneware carriage, that views 2.4 and 2.6 are valid sectional views, view 2.2 is a valid partial view showing the product with the removable roof removed, and the apparent differences arise from the different drawing perspectives.
- ›The Board found the views are consistent and reconcilable as a unitary product: views 2.4 and 2.6 function as sectional views complementing the aspect views, view 2.6's 'cut' is above the conveyor belt explaining the absence of stoneware vessels, view 2.2 validly reveals the internal structure with the roof removed, and curvature differences between perspective and orthographic views are inherent to technical drawing.
- ›The appeal was dismissed and the invalidity applicant ordered to bear EUR 900 in costs.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2528/2025-3 | 2026-06-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2360/2025-3 | 2026-05-28 | 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 |