DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003038900-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-12-11

000010732

Contested design: 003038900-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld; Registered Community design No 003038900-0001 is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

Se estima la solicitud de declaración de nulidad. Se declara nulo el dibujo o modelo comunitario registrado nº 003038900-0001. Se condena al titular a que sufrague las costas del solicitante, que se fijan en 750 EUR.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Trace Tech ID Solutions, S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

C/ Riera dels Frares 5-7, 08907 Hospitalet del Llobregat, España

Holder · RCD owner

Myruns Engineering Sports, S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Pso. Mikeletegi, 83- 1º, 20009 Donostia (Guipuzcoa), España

Prior art cited (3)

Publication

various publication extracts describing different technical parts of RFID systems

Patent

four US patents for RFID systems

United States

Publication

various technical datasheets for RFID antennas

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 4(2)Article 8(1)Article 8(2)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested RFID dipole design was excluded from protection because its features were exclusively dictated by technical function and, as a component, lacked visible design-relevant features in normal use.
  • The holder replied that technical constraints did not uniquely determine the dipole's shape, that alternative configurations existed, and that the design could still be visible and aesthetically protectable.
  • The Invalidity Division found the dipole was an internal semi-product whose features, including the upper and lower openings and loop, were chosen solely to perform the technical function rather than to improve appearance.
  • The Division upheld invalidity under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 8(1), rejected the Article 8(2) interoperability theory, and ordered the holder to pay costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER
  • MemberÁlvaro SESMA MERINO

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esSpanishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

14.0214.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000130850

vs Michael AMARA

2026-04-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)148
000131224

vs Shenzhen Ruixin Fengshuo Electronic Co., Ltd

2026-03-06REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)148
000130970

vs Liu yanqiong

2026-02-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)148
000131064

vs Jinfeng Min

2026-02-25REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)148
000130524

vs Liu yanqiong

2026-02-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)148
000129861

vs Liu yanqiong

2025-12-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)148
000130564

vs Yunzeng He

2025-12-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)148
000130565

vs Yunzeng He

2025-12-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)148