DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001435499-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-03-20

000010718

Contested design: 001435499-0003

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity against the contested RCD is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 001435499-0003 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Küberit Profile Systems GmbH & Co. KG

Germany (DE)

Römerweg 9, 58513 Lüdenscheid, Deutschland

Holder · RCD owner

Georg Sondermann

Germany (DE)

Biggeseestr. 20a, 57489 Drolshagen, Deutschland

Represented by

V. Bezold & Partner

Prior art cited (6)

National designD1

Fußbodenschienen

40200327-0001 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 2002-06-25

National designD2

Fußbodenschienen

40200327-0002 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 2002-06-25

National designD3

ABS-Abdeckleiste 5256 für Postformingfronten, Ps-Profil 5264

M8900108-0001 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 1990-08-10

National designD4

Stranggepreßtes Rollgitter-Profil mit Ausstanzungen, Typ Diamant

M9400821-0001 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 1994-08-10

National designD5

Profil für Türen

M9805374-0001 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 1998-12-24

National designD6

Profil

M8802611-0001 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 1989-09-25

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant claimed the contested floor-strip design lacked novelty and individual character over six earlier German designs, especially D1.
  • The holder disputed that the base profile would be invisible in use and argued the contested design differed sufficiently from the prior designs.
  • The Division found the applicant had not proved invisibility or purely technical form, so the full visible design had to be compared.
  • The earlier designs disclosed relevant prior art, but none created the same overall impression; the invalidity application was rejected and costs awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberStephan HANNE

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

25.02

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000105879

vs Bernhard Hirsch

2020-02-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000104699

vs DACHPOL Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością

2020-01-30Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000104079

vs SUZHOU 3DS ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., Ltd.

2019-12-12Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000104060

vs SUZHOU 3DS ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., Ltd.

2019-12-12Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000104059

vs SUZHOU 3DS ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., Ltd.

2019-12-12Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000106301

vs Sports Partner

2019-09-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000106281

vs Sports Partner

2019-09-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000106280

vs Sports Partner

2019-09-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258