Invalidity · first instance · 2018-04-24
000010547
Contested design: 002008250-0001
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 002008250-0001 is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 002008250-0001 is rejected. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Euro Play ApS
Denmark (DK)
Industrivej 16, 6630 Rødding, Denmark
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Dutch Toys Group Holding B.V.
Netherlands (NL)
Edisonstraat 83, 7006 RB Doetinchem, Netherlands
Represented by
Prior art cited (5)
EXIT Coppa Goal
email from Dutch Toys Group B.V. with attached product sheet · disclosed 2012-01-16
EXIT Maestro Goal
email from Dutch Toys Group B.V. with attached product sheet · disclosed 2012-01-16
EXIT Panna Goal
email from Dutch Toys Group B.V. with attached product sheet · disclosed 2012-01-16
HUDORA Fußballtor Trainer mit Torwand football goal
www.amazon.de · Amazon.de · disclosed 2011-01-12
BEX football goal
www.soccerplay.dk / www.europlay.dk · Internet Archive · disclosed 2011-07-31
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant alleged lack of novelty and individual character over earlier football-goal designs, argued the frame angles were technically dictated, and relied on email and internet evidence of prior disclosures.
- ›The holder said the EXIT disclosures fell within the Article 7(2) grace period through its subsidiary, disputed that the cited designs matched the RCD, and maintained the visible frame, net and protector features differentiated the design.
- ›The Invalidity Division rejected the EXIT email evidence as private and objectively insufficient, treated the remaining prior-art submissions narrowly, and accepted only the HUDORA and BEX internet disclosures for substantive comparison.
- ›The Division found neither accepted prior design identical to the RCD and held the differences in frame shape, net coverage, attachment and protectors produced a different overall impression on the informed user, so the invalidity application was rejected.
Deciding panel
- MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberBirgit FILTENBORG
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000109222 vs DELTA-SPORT Handelskontor GmbH | 2020-02-12 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000109203 vs DELTA-SPORT Handelskontor GmbH | 2020-02-11 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000105502 vs NIKE Innovate C.V. | 2019-10-08 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000105761 vs Hui ZENG | 2019-09-13 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000104239 vs REPLIC HOCKEY SL | 2019-08-05 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000105219 vs CHROME CHERRY DESIGN STUDIO (PTY) LTD | 2019-07-30 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000011219 vs TCC Global N.V. | 2018-12-03 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |
| 000011052 vs Qizhi Chen | 2018-08-28 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 8 |