Invalidity · first instance · 2018-06-27
000010556
Contested design: 000613419-0002
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)
Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 000613419-0002 wird zurückgewiesen. 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)
wheel for vehicles
GGM 000244249-0005 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2005-01-25
wheel for vehicles
GGM 000244249-0008 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2005-01-25
wheel for vehicles
US D0407057
wheel for vehicles
US D0497339
wheel for vehicles
US D0503916
wheel for vehicles
US D522947
wheel for vehicles
US D522431
wheel for vehicles
US D514495
wheel for vehicles
DE 40302828-0002 · Germany
wheel for vehicles
DE 40403902-0005 · Germany
wheel for vehicles
DE 40403902-0008 · Germany
wheel for vehicles
DE 40602053-0003 · Germany
wheel for vehicles
WO D065831-008 · WIPO
wheel for vehicles
IR 00042469-0002 · International Registration
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant alleged lack of novelty and individual character, relying on fourteen earlier wheel designs and stressing similarities with the contested RCD.
- ›The holder asked for rejection, citing an earlier EUIPO invalidity decision on the same RCD and arguing that even small differences matter in this product sector.
- ›The Division held that disclosure was proven only for D1 and D2; the other cited designs lacked objective evidence of public disclosure under Article 7.
- ›Comparing D1 and D2 with the contested design, the Division found non-negligible differences in contours, depth, edges, and overall impression, so novelty and individual character were preserved.
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 |