DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000322557-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-07-31

000009878

Contested design: 000322557-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicants must pay the holders' costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 000322557-0001 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragsteller tragen die Kosten der Inhaber, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Andrzej Bakvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Biała 65, 87-100 Toruń, Polen

Represented by

Kailuweit & Uhlemann

Holder · RCD owner

Vitus Maria Huber

Germany (DE)

Baldurstr. 13, 80637 München, Deutschland

Prior art cited (1)

Utility modelD1

Orthopädische Vorrichtung zur Korrektur von Zehenfehlstellungen

DE 203 12 159 U1 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt Patentblatt · disclosed 2003-11-13

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(a)Article 3(a)Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(2)Article 5(1)Article 6(1)Article 7Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • Applicants sought invalidity for inconsistent representations, lack of novelty and individual character over D1, and exclusion of technically dictated features.
  • Holders argued the filing defect was cured, the images showed one product, D1 was only a technical utility-model disclosure, and the contested design remained novel and distinctive.
  • The Division found the representation coherent, the component parts visible in normal use, and the alleged technical features not proven to be exclusively function-driven.
  • Although D1 was sufficiently disclosed, its sketchy drawings did not permit a reliable design comparison, so the invalidity grounds failed.

Deciding panel

  • MemberStephan HANNE
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

24.04

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000105480

vs FBGC Limited

2019-08-13Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)248
000010860

vs TSK Laboratory Europe B.V.

2018-10-17Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)248
000117392

vs CILAG GMBH INTERNATIONAL

2023-05-15Art 25(1)(b)247
000118097

vs CILAG GMBH INTERNATIONAL

2023-05-15Art 25(1)(b)247
000118077

vs CILAG GMBH INTERNATIONAL

2023-03-22Art 25(1)(b)247
000117453

vs SHANGHAI TENGXIANG TRAVEL PRODUCTS CO.,LTD

2023-03-20Art 25(1)(b)247
000117372

vs Biovico Sp. z o.o.

2023-02-23Art 25(1)(b)247
000115342

vs Elsa Vermögens- und Beteiligungs AG

2022-06-15Art 25(1)(b)247