Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-06-29
R2112/2025-3
Contested design: 015039369-0010
Outcome
The case is remitted to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution in light of additional evidence admitted on appeal; each party bears its own costs in the appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Remits the case to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution. 2. Orders each party to bear its own costs in the appeal proceedings.
CostsEach party bears its own costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
FAAC S.p.A.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Zola Predosa (BO), Italy
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Suzhou Bimeng Technology Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
China (CN)
Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, China
Represented by
Krzysztof Breguła
Prior art cited (4)
FAAC wireless remote control, front view only
XT2 868 MHz SLH LR (grey) · FAAC product catalogues 2015-2022 (Annexes A1-A8)
FAAC wireless remote control black version, front view only
XT2 868 MHz SLH LR (black) · FAAC product catalogues 2015-2022 (Annexes A1-A8)
FAAC wireless remote control XT4 model, front view only
XT4 868 MHz SLH LR (grey) · FAAC product catalogues 2015-2022 (Annexes A1-A8)
FAAC wireless remote control XT4 black version, front view only
XT4 868 MHz SLH LR (black) · FAAC product catalogues 2015-2022 (Annexes A1-A8)
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Invalidity applicant (appellant) argued the contested EUD (wireless remote control) lacked novelty over its own earlier FAAC XT2/XT4 remote controls (D1-D4) disclosed in catalogues from 2015; on appeal it also raised lack of individual character under Article 6, and submitted new evidence (CE certification documents, technical drawings, back-view photo) to supplement D1.
- ›Design holder did not file observations in reply to the appeal.
- ›The Board found the individual character ground inadmissible as a new ground introduced only on appeal beyond the first-instance scope; it confirmed the Invalidity Division's finding of novelty based on first-instance evidence (prior designs shown only in front view, leaving rear/side views of contested EUD unverified).
- ›However, the Board admitted the new evidence as supplementary to the same prior designs and remitted the case to the Invalidity Division to assess novelty in light of the additional evidence; each party bears its own costs on appeal.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberC. Negro
- RegistrarK. Zajfert
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2046/2025-3 | 2026-06-19 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 60(1) | — | 9 |
| R0422/2023-3 | 2024-03-19 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 60(1) | — | 8 |
| R0353/2022-3 | 2023-03-10 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 60(1) | — | 8 |
| R2047/2025-3 | 2026-06-19 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |
| R0577/2025-3 | 2026-01-21 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 60(1) | — | 6 |
| R0828/2024-3 | 2025-12-05 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |
| R1804/2024-3 | 2025-11-19 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |