DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001764010-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-09-26

000010889

Contested design: 001764010-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's fixed costs of EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 001764010-0001 is declared invalid. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

K9-Sport Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Korlátolt Felelősségű Társaság

Hungary (HU)

Ipar utca 10-12, 2310 Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary

Represented by

Norbert András Pataki

Holder · RCD owner

Katrien Mornie

Belgium (BE)

Fabriekstraat 39A, 9700 Oudenaarde, Belgium

Prior art cited (3)

Utility model⚠ rejected as evidence

Top-Matic magnetic ball for dog training

DPMA DE 20 2010 009 962 U1 · DPMA · disclosed 2010-12-02

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Website extracts showing the Top-Matic magnetic ball

http://top-matic.com · top-matic.com

Web disclosure

Magnetic ball with rectangular attachment shown in a Jason Baldwin YouTube video

YouTube video 'Magnet Ball Placement' · YouTube · disclosed 2010-09-23

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested design lacked novelty and individual character and was merely a schematic ball with a rectangular attachment.
  • The holder disputed prior disclosure, challenged the YouTube evidence, and maintained that the RCD was novel and had individual character.
  • The Division rejected the utility model and website extracts as insufficiently prior-dated, but accepted the YouTube video as a valid pre-filing disclosure under Article 7 CDR.
  • Comparing the disclosed design with the contested RCD, the Division found the sole relevant features identical, held the RCD not novel, and invalidated it.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

30.99

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129301

vs Yu Bao

2026-01-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000129536

vs WENJIU YANG

2025-10-28REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000129724

vs Shenzhen Xianluo Technology Co., Ltd.

2025-10-20REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000124016

vs EDIESI

2024-09-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000124036

vs EDIESI

2024-09-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000124035

vs EDIESI

2024-09-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000123279

vs Jure MARKIČ

2024-05-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308
000123434

vs Guangzhou ChongChong E-Commerce Co., Ltd.

2024-04-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)308