Invalidity · first instance · 2019-03-04
000011035
Contested design: 003762830-0001
Outcome
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 003762830-0001 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
INO-ROPE SASvia PDF extraction
France (FR)
1 Rue des Senneurs, 29900 Concarneau, France
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Ropeye OÜvia PDF extraction
EE
Tehnika 1-3, 10149 Tallinn, Estonia
Represented by
Margus Sarap
Prior art cited (2)
French prior design with a central hole and two semi-circular cut-outs
French design registration No 20101446-011 · National Institute of Industrial Property of France (INPI) · disclosed 2010-12-10
French prior design with a central hole and a threaded rod with wing nuts
French design registration No 20101446-005 · National Institute of Industrial Property of France (INPI) · disclosed 2010-12-10
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity under Articles 25(1)(b), 5, 6 and 8, arguing the spacer design was technically dictated and lacked novelty and individual character over D1 and D2.
- ›The holder replied that the applicant had not shown the appearance was solely functional and that the contested design was not identical to the cited prior designs.
- ›The Division accepted D1 and D2 as disclosed, despite missing translations, but found no convincing evidence that the contested design's essential features were solely dictated by technical function.
- ›It also found substantial differences from both prior designs, so the contested RCD remained new and produced a different overall impression on the informed user.
- ›The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELISOVA
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
- MemberBirgit FILTENBORG
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000106559 vs COREgravel UK Ltd | 2020-10-08 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 8 |
| 000011138 vs HYPERTHERM, INC. | 2019-10-16 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 8 |
| 000010803 vs Firma Handlowa „tm" Tomasz Filipiak | 2019-07-09 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 8 |
| 000010997 vs AGS Sp. z o.o. | 2019-04-25 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 8 |
| 000011036 vs GIGALI Ltd. | 2019-03-04 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 8 |
| 000010745 vs LOGLI MASSIMO S.P.A. | 2018-09-26 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 8 |
| 000011038 vs GIGALI Ltd. | 2018-07-26 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 8 |
| 000011037 vs GIGALI Ltd. | 2018-07-10 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 8 |