Invalidity · first instance · 2018-03-20
000010719
Contested design: 001435499-0004
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder’s costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 001435499-0004 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
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Georg Sondermann
Germany (DE)
Biggeseestr. 20a, 57489 Drolshagen, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (6)
Fußbodenschienen
40200327-0001 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 2002-06-25
Fußbodenschienen
40200327-0002 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 2002-06-25
ABS-Abdeckleiste 5256 für Postformingfronten, Ps-Profil 5264
M8900108-0001 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 1990-08-10
Stranggepreßtes Rollgitter-Profil mit Ausstanzungen, Typ Diamant
M9400821-0001 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 1994-08-10
Profil für Türen
M9805374-0001 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 1998-12-24
Profil
M8802611-0001 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 1989-09-25
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued the contested floor-profile design lacked novelty and individual character over six earlier German designs, especially D1, and said parts of the base profile were invisible in use or technically dictated.
- ›The holder disputed that the base profile would always be hidden and argued the contested design differed sufficiently from the cited prior designs despite some functional constraints.
- ›The Division accepted D1 to D6 as disclosed prior art but found no proof that visibility exclusions or purely technical features removed the base profile from the comparison.
- ›It held the contested design was not identical to any cited design and created a different overall impression, so the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberStephan HANNE
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deGerman | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000105879 vs Bernhard Hirsch | 2020-02-04 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000104699 vs DACHPOL Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością | 2020-01-30 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000104079 vs SUZHOU 3DS ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., Ltd. | 2019-12-12 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000104060 vs SUZHOU 3DS ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., Ltd. | 2019-12-12 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000104059 vs SUZHOU 3DS ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., Ltd. | 2019-12-12 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000106301 vs Sports Partner | 2019-09-27 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000106281 vs Sports Partner | 2019-09-27 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000106280 vs Sports Partner | 2019-09-27 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |