DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003772722-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-09-28

000010861

Contested design: 003772722-0003

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 003772722-0003 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Thomann GmbH

Germany (DE)

Hans-Thomann-Straße 1, 96138 Burgebrach, Deutschland

Holder · RCD owner

Adam Hall GmbH

Germany (DE)

Adam-Hall-Str. 1, 61267 Neu-Anspach, Deutschland

Prior art cited (7)

Web disclosureD1

BIG KNOB Studio Command System audio controller

mackie.com via Wayback Machine · disclosed 2015-02-17

Web disclosureD2

McONE Passive Monitoring Controller

new-old-sound.com via Wayback Machine · disclosed 2012-06-21

Web disclosureD3

Nano Patch+ monitor controller

jblpro.com via Wayback Machine · disclosed 2016-01-25

Web disclosureD4

iD22 High Performance AD/DA Interface & Monitoring System

audient.com via Wayback Machine · disclosed 2013-11-16

Web disclosureD5

MC3.1 Monitor Controller

drawmer.com via Wayback Machine · disclosed 2016-09-16

Web disclosureD6

Fostex PC-1e(B)/(W): Volume Controller

drawmer.com via Wayback Machine · disclosed 2012-03-30

Web disclosureD7

Universal Audio Apollo Twin USB Duo

thomann.de · disclosed 2016-02-01

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over seven earlier audio-controller web disclosures.
  • The holder filed no observations and left the invalidity application undefended on the merits.
  • The Division accepted D1 to D7 as prior disclosures but found clear differences in proportions, knob placement, and casing shape.
  • Because the contested design produced a different overall impression and was not identical to D1 or D2, the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberStephan HANNE
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

14.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000107739

vs Shenzhen Sinobry Electronic Ltd

2020-01-16Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)148
000101619

vs caresyntax GmbH

2019-06-17Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)148
000102939

vs Andres Meseguer Lozano

2019-06-05Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)148
000129183

vs Yi Duan

2025-09-16Art 25(1)(b)147
000124156

vs Autoelektronika Maciej Świdnicki

2024-07-02Art 25(1)(b)147
000121322

vs Shenzhen Hongshi Trading Co., Ltd.

2024-02-15Art 25(1)(b)147
000116928

vs Nintendo Co., Ltd.

2022-08-31Art 25(1)(b)147
000116470

vs SENOR TECH CO., LTD.

2022-06-09Art 25(1)(b)147