Invalidity · first instance · 2018-06-27
000010557
Contested design: 000613419-0003
Outcome
The invalidity application 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. 000613419-0003 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 (6)
wheel for motor vehicles
GGM 000065123-0003 · Blatt fuer Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster · disclosed 2003-12-23
wheel for motor vehicles
GGM 000226436-0001 · Blatt fuer Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster · disclosed 2004-11-30
wheel for motor vehicles
GGM 000259270-0003 · Blatt fuer Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster · disclosed 2005-02-22
wheel for motor vehicles
GGM 000542865-0001 · Blatt fuer Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster · disclosed 2006-07-25
wheel for motor vehicles
DE 40101926-0001 · Germany
wheel for motor vehicles
US D0449267 · United States
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on six earlier designs and argued some wheel features were purely functional.
- ›The holder argued the application should be rejected because even small differences matter in this sector and the cited designs created a different overall impression.
- ›The Division found disclosure was proven only for D1 to D4; D5 and D6 lacked evidence of disclosure, and D4 fell within the grace period under Article 7(2).
- ›The Division held D1 to D3 were neither identical to nor overall similar enough to the contested design, notably because they showed seven double spokes instead of six.
- ›The invalidity grounds under Article 25(1)(b) failed, so the application was rejected and costs were 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 |