DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004384576-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-07-26

000011038

Contested design: 004384576-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 004384576-0001 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

INO-ROPE SAS

France (FR)

1 Rue des Senneurs, 29900 Concarneau, France

Holder · RCD owner

Ropeye OÜvia PDF extraction

EE

Tartu mnt 80j, 10112 Tallinn, Tallinn, Estonia

Represented by

Margus Sarap

Prior art cited (3)

CatalogExhibit 13⚠ rejected as evidence

Extract from an unknown source showing views of the holder's Grip Jammer product

Web disclosureExhibit 23⚠ rejected as evidence

Screenshot and extract of the holder's Facebook page showing the Grip Jammer product

www.facebook.com · Facebook

PatentExhibit 24

French patent publication for a rope stopper mechanism

French patent No 11 56973 / FR 2 978 515 · France · disclosed 2013-02-01

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 4(2)Article 5(1)Article 6(1)Article 7Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the rope stopper was largely hidden in normal use, its appearance was solely dictated by technical function, and it lacked novelty and individual character over earlier disclosures.
  • The holder filed observations and catalogue material after the deadline; the Division refused to take those late submissions into account.
  • The Division found insufficient reliable evidence for the Article 8(1) and Article 4 objections, treated only the visible end and part of the spring as relevant, and accepted only the French patent as a prior disclosure.
  • Comparing the visible features, the Division held the contested design was new and created a different overall impression on the informed user, so the invalidity application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

08.0708.08

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000106559

vs COREgravel UK Ltd

2020-10-08Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000011138

vs HYPERTHERM, INC.

2019-10-16Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000010803

vs Firma Handlowa „tm" Tomasz Filipiak

2019-07-09Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000010997

vs AGS Sp. z o.o.

2019-04-25Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000011035

vs GIGALI Ltd.

2019-03-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000011036

vs GIGALI Ltd.

2019-03-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000010745

vs LOGLI MASSIMO S.P.A.

2018-09-26Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000011033

vs GIGALI Ltd.

2018-07-10Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088