DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000529185-0005

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-06-27

000010553

Contested design: 000529185-0005

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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. 000529185-0005 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

Prior art cited (28)

Registered RCDD1

wheel design

GGM 000090410-0003 · EUIPO Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2004-03-23

Registered RCDD2

wheel design

GGM 000376546-0006 · EUIPO Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2005-09-06

Registered RCDD3

wheel design

GGM 000422795-0006 · EUIPO Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2005-12-13

Registered RCDD4

wheel design

GGM 000557558-0001 · EUIPO Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2006-08-16

PatentD5⚠ rejected as evidence

wheel design

US D413851 · United States

PatentD6⚠ rejected as evidence

wheel design

US D0451876 · United States

PatentD7⚠ rejected as evidence

wheel design

US D0426184 · United States

PatentD8⚠ rejected as evidence

wheel design

US D0428846 · United States

PatentD9⚠ rejected as evidence

wheel design

USD0459689 · United States

PatentD10⚠ rejected as evidence

wheel design

US D0486437 · United States

PatentD11⚠ rejected as evidence

wheel design

US D0487418 · United States

PatentD12⚠ rejected as evidence

wheel design

US D0486770 · United States

PatentD13⚠ rejected as evidence

wheel design

US D0530258 · United States

National designD14⚠ rejected as evidence

wheel design

DE 49700241-001 · Germany

National designD15⚠ rejected as evidence

wheel design

DE 49811538-0001 · Germany

National designD16⚠ rejected as evidence

wheel design

DE 40105748-0001 · Germany

National designD17⚠ rejected as evidence

wheel design

DE 40106453-0001 · Germany

National designD18⚠ rejected as evidence

wheel design

DE 40108110-0001 · Germany

National designD19⚠ rejected as evidence

wheel design

DE 40202810-0001 · Germany

National designD20⚠ rejected as evidence

wheel design

DE 40111058-0001 · Germany

National designD21⚠ rejected as evidence

wheel design

DE 40202481-0001 · Germany

National designD22⚠ rejected as evidence

wheel design

DE 40202745 · Germany

International designD23⚠ rejected as evidence

wheel design

WO D057906-0001 · WIPO Hague System

International designD24⚠ rejected as evidence

wheel design

WO D057943-0001 · WIPO Hague System

International designD25⚠ rejected as evidence

wheel design

WO D059174-001 · WIPO Hague System

International designD26⚠ rejected as evidence

wheel design

WO D063504-040 · WIPO Hague System

International designD27⚠ rejected as evidence

wheel design

WO D066343-004 · WIPO Hague System

International designD28⚠ rejected as evidence

wheel design

IR 00045560-0001 · WIPO Hague System

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on 28 earlier wheel designs under Article 25(1)(b) with Articles 4 to 7 CDR.
  • The holder argued that small differences matter in wheel design, the informed user's attention is high, and the cited designs create different overall impressions.
  • The Division held that only D1 to D3 were proven disclosed before filing, D4 was published too late, and D5 to D28 lacked evidence of disclosure.
  • It found none of D1 to D3 identical to or producing the same overall impression as the contested design, so the invalidity application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberAndré Gerd Günther BOSSE

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

12.16

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000113981

vs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd

2022-04-08Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128
000104359

vs Lohia e-mobility GmbH

2020-06-23Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128
000107759

vs A & F S.r.l.

2020-06-10Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128
000107760

vs A & F S.r.l.

2020-06-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128
000103799

vs LT Fördertechnik

2019-11-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128
000102599

vs Tecnimoem Care, S.L.

2019-10-10Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128
000103619

vs Airwheel Europe S. A.

2019-09-17Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128
000011186

vs LA MARE Spółka z o.o.

2019-08-05Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128