Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-06-29
R1108/2025-3
Contested design: 009155203-0004
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the design holder's costs of EUR 900 for both the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
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 contested EUD's seven views were inconsistent, depicting different products due to the varying presence or absence of roof, side walls, railings and ladders, rendering the EUD ineligible as a 'design' under Article 3(a) CDR.
- ›Design holder argued the views consistently depicted the same product using permissible sectional and partial views, with differences attributable to removable components and established graphic-representation techniques.
- ›The Board confirmed the Invalidity Division's finding that the seven views are sufficiently clear and consistent, depicting a single product (platform with power generator and water carriage) from different perspectives and sections, without irreconcilable contradictions.
- ›Appeal dismissed; the contested EUD falls within the definition of a design under Article 3(a) CDR; the invalidity applicant bears EUR 900 in representation costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberA. Pohlmann
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1107/2025-3 | 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 |