Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-06-29
R1107/2025-3
Contested design: 009155203-0003
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 (cement silo and concrete mixer carriage) are inconsistent — sectional view 3.4 fails to show the cement silo as a hollow structure, views 3.2 and 3.5 cannot be partial views as they depict the entire product without a roof, and some views show an inconsistent top overlay removal.
- ›Design holder (defendant) maintained all views are consistent representations of the same product, that view 3.4 is a valid vertical sectional view, views 3.2 and 3.5 are valid partial views showing the product with its removable roof removed, and the grey surfaces in view 3.4 adequately depict the cut surfaces.
- ›The Board found the views consistent and reconcilable as a single unitary product: view 3.4 constitutes a valid cutaway view revealing internal parts, the grey surfaces indicate the cut surfaces including the cement silo, views 3.2 and 3.5 validly depict the product with the removable roof absent, and no irreconcilable inconsistencies exist.
- ›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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1108/2025-3 | 2026-06-29 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(a) | — | 5 |
| R1104/2025-3 | 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 |