Invalidity · first instance · 2018-03-20
000010722
Contested design: 001435499-0007
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity of Registered Community design No 001435499-0007 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. 001435499-0007 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 applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on six earlier German design registrations and arguing that D1 differed from the contested design only in insignificant details.
- ›The holder argued that the base profile can remain visible in normal use and that the contested design differed sufficiently from the cited designs despite functional constraints in floor-profile products.
- ›The Division accepted D1 to D6 as prior disclosures, found no proof that Article 4(2) excluded the visible features or that the edge profile was purely technical, and included those features in the comparison.
- ›The Division found the contested design neither identical to nor creating the same overall impression as the earlier designs, especially D1, so the invalidity application was rejected and costs 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 |