DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004161800-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-12-20

000011043

Contested design: 004161800-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 004161800-0001 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

Lafat komerc d.o.o.

BA

Industrijska zona bb, 57260 Kalesija, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Represented by

Tadej Černivec

Holder · RCD owner

Biodom 27 d.o.o., proizvodnja, trgovina in storitvevia PDF extraction

SI

OIC — Hrpelje 14A, 6240 Kozina, Slovenia

Prior art cited (4)

International designAppendix 1⚠ rejected as evidence

international design application based on a prior Bosnian national application

BAD17706A · Bosnia and Herzegovina · disclosed 2017-05-30

PublicationAppendix 2⚠ rejected as evidence

notification of publication of the Bosnian national design application

BAD17706A · Bosnian State Intellectual Property Office

Prior useAppendix 4⚠ rejected as evidence

photograph of the product incorporating the earlier design

disclosed 2016-05-07

National designAppendix 6⚠ rejected as evidence

Bosnian national design application

BAD17706A · Bosnia and Herzegovina

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 25(1)(d)(iii)Article 25(1)(f)Article 25(3)Article 4Article 5Article 6Article 7

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty, conflict with an earlier international/national design, and unauthorised use of a copyright work under Bosnian law.
  • Holder filed no observations in reply and left the application undefended on the merits.
  • The Division disregarded untranslated Bosnian design documents, found no proof of a valid earlier international right effective in the EU, and no proof of copyright entitlement.
  • It also found no solid and objective evidence that the earlier design had been made available to the public, so the Articles 5 and 6 challenge failed and the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

23.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000109481

vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd

2020-12-16Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)2310
000109521

vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd

2020-12-16Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)2310
000109561

vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd

2020-12-16Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)2310
000122955

vs Jun Yu

2024-02-26Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f)8
000116997

vs Zechuang Zheng

2022-06-22Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f)8
000109402

vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd

2020-12-16Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(d)238
000109461

vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd

2020-12-16Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)238
000109541

vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd

2020-12-16Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)238