Invalidity · first instance · 2018-12-19
000010747
Contested design: 002739482-0003
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 002739482-0003 is rejected. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
4-Shisha GmbH
Germany (DE)
Im Hesselbruch 2, 45356 Essen, Germany
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
nextro GmbH
Austria (AT)
Bahnhof-Umgebung 17a, 6170 Zirl, Austria
Prior art cited (3)
hookah shown in a Facebook publication allegedly posted by Mr Vincent Chinahookah Wang
Facebook (alleged) · disclosed 2014-10-17
hookah shown in a Facebook publication allegedly posted by Mr Vincent Chinahookah Wang
Facebook (alleged) · disclosed 2015-06-02
Desert Eagle pistol model cited via Wikipedia extract and US patent extract
US Patent No 4.619.184 · Wikipedia; U.S. Patent Office · disclosed 1985-01-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying mainly on two alleged Facebook disclosures of earlier hookah designs and later also on Desert Eagle pistol materials.
- ›The holder challenged the reliability of the Facebook evidence, argued any relevant publications were connected to MOB Hookah within the Article 7(2) CDR grace period, and denied any invalidity ground.
- ›The Division found Exhibits 1 and 2 did not objectively prove public disclosure because the screenshots lacked reliable source and context information, and Exhibit 3 alone was insufficient corroboration.
- ›The Division treated the late Desert Eagle materials as inadmissible new prior art, concluded disclosure under Article 7 CDR was not proven, and rejected the invalidity application.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000010628 vs nextro GmbH | 2018-11-14 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 27 | 8 |
| 000010795 vs posh global GmbH | 2018-10-08 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 27 | 8 |
| 000111081 vs MatMind S.r.l. | 2021-04-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 27 | 7 |
| 000008394 vs MatMind S.r.l. | 2018-11-22 | Invalidity application rejected | — | 27 | 6 |
| 000130847 vs Ying CAO | 2026-02-13 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 27 | 5 |
| 000125137 vs Shenzhen Olit Trading Co., Ltd. | 2025-12-02 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 27 | 5 |
| 000127919 vs Benxi Fenghe Lighter Co., Ltd | 2025-05-23 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 27 | 5 |
| 000124395 vs Xin Lu | 2025-02-27 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 27 | 5 |