Invalidity · first instance · 2018-09-24
000010887
Contested design: 000009915-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's fixed costs of EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 000009915-0001 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
Baltrotors
LV
Instituta 1, 2169 Salaspils, Latvia
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Indexator Rotator Systems AB
Sweden (SE)
Box 11, 922 21 Vindeln, Sweden
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
rotator/stator shown as part of a logging machine
Östbergs Fabriks AB brochure (1981) · Östbergs Fabriks AB
machine for removing branches from tree trunks incorporating a prior stator/rotator design
US Patent No 4,766,939 · United States patent publication · disclosed 1988-08-30
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested stator design was solely dictated by technical function, partly invisible in normal use, and lacked novelty and individual character over earlier designs D1 and D2.
- ›The holder replied that not every feature was technical, D1 was too incomplete for meaningful comparison, and D2 differed in loop size, attachments, pinhole proportions and the central opening.
- ›The Division found the applicant had not proved that all essential features were solely functional; it excluded the underside from assessment under Article 4(2), rejected E3 as insufficient, and found D1 unusable for comparison.
- ›Although designer freedom was limited, the visible loop-configuration differences meant D2 created a different overall impression, so all invalidity grounds failed and the application was rejected.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
- MemberBirgit FILTENBORG
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000010660 vs Vorwerk & Co. Interholding GmbH | 2019-02-12 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 8 |
| 000010661 vs Vorwerk Elektrowerke GmbH & Co. KG | 2019-02-12 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 8 |
| 000124955 vs Terence A.H.F. Noppe h.o.d.n. EasySwift | 2025-09-05 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000122714 vs LEIFHEIT AG | 2024-06-21 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000122955 vs Jun Yu | 2024-02-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000120382 vs Jan Ładny | 2024-01-09 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000119103 vs DYSON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED | 2023-12-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000119138 vs DYSON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED | 2023-12-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |