Invalidity · first instance · 2018-06-27
000010555
Contested design: 000613419-0001
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity of Registered Community design No 000613419-0001 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. 000613419-0001 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 (14)
vehicle wheel design
RCD No 000244249-0005 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2005-01-25
vehicle wheel design
RCD No 000244249-0008 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2005-01-25
vehicle wheel design
US D0407057
vehicle wheel design
US D0497339
vehicle wheel design
US D0503916
vehicle wheel design
US D522947
vehicle wheel design
US D522431
vehicle wheel design
US D514495
vehicle wheel design
DE 40302828-0001
vehicle wheel design
DE 40403902-0005
vehicle wheel design
DE 40403902-0008
vehicle wheel design
DE 40602053-0003
vehicle wheel design
WO D065831-008
vehicle wheel design
IR 00042469-0002
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested wheel lacked novelty and individual character and relied on fourteen earlier wheel designs, while noting a parallel invalidity case against the same RCD.
- ›The holder requested rejection, cited the earlier ICD 9951 decision on the same RCD, and argued that even small differences matter in a dense market for high-value vehicle wheels.
- ›The Division held that the applicant had not proven disclosure of D3 to D14; only earlier RCDs D1 and D2 were established through the Office database and bulletin publication.
- ›Compared with D1 and D2, the contested wheel was neither identical nor producing the same overall impression, so the Article 25(1)(b) grounds failed and the application was rejected.
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 |