Invalidity · first instance · 2018-06-26
000010554
Contested design: 000529185-0006
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity 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. 000529185-0006 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
RVS S.R.L.
Italy (IT)
Via Per Salvatronda, 60 - Zona Ind.le, 31033 Castelfranco Veneto (TV), Italien
Represented by
Giulio Bonadio
Holder · RCD owner
Daimler AGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Mercedesstr. 137, 70327 Stuttgart, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (28)
vehicle wheel
GGM 000090410-0003 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2004-03-23
vehicle wheel
GGM 000376546-0006 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2005-09-06
vehicle wheel
GGM 000422795-0006 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2005-12-13
vehicle wheel
GGM 000557558-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2006-08-16
vehicle wheel
US D413851
vehicle wheel
US D0451876
vehicle wheel
US D0426184
vehicle wheel
US D0428846
vehicle wheel
USD0459689
vehicle wheel
US D0486437
vehicle wheel
US D0487418
vehicle wheel
US D0486770
vehicle wheel
US D0530258
vehicle wheel
DE 49700241-001
vehicle wheel
DE 49811538-0001
vehicle wheel
DE 40105748-0001
vehicle wheel
DE 40106453-0001
vehicle wheel
DE 40108110-0001
vehicle wheel
DE 40202810-0001
vehicle wheel
DE 40111058-0001
vehicle wheel
DE 40202481-0001
vehicle wheel
DE 40202745
vehicle wheel
WO D057906-0001
vehicle wheel
WO D057943-0001
vehicle wheel
WO D059174-001
vehicle wheel
WO D063504-040
vehicle wheel
WO D066343-004
vehicle wheel
IR 00045560-0001
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on 28 earlier wheel designs, arguing small shape differences and functional ventilation openings could not create a different overall impression.
- ›The holder argued minor differences can suffice in this sector, buyers pay close attention to wheel design, designer freedom remains broad, and each cited design creates a distinct overall impression.
- ›The Division held disclosure was proven only for RCDs D1 to D3; D4 was published after the contested filing date, and D5 to D28 lacked concrete evidence showing prior disclosure to the public.
- ›Comparing D1 to D3 with the contested design, the Division found no identical earlier design and no same overall impression; the invalidity application was therefore rejected and costs awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberAndré Gerd Günther BOSSE
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000113981 vs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd | 2022-04-08 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000104359 vs Lohia e-mobility GmbH | 2020-06-23 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000107759 vs A & F S.r.l. | 2020-06-10 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000107760 vs A & F S.r.l. | 2020-06-04 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000103799 vs LT Fördertechnik | 2019-11-04 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000102599 vs Tecnimoem Care, S.L. | 2019-10-10 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000103619 vs Airwheel Europe S. A. | 2019-09-17 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000011186 vs LA MARE Spółka z o.o. | 2019-08-05 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |