DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004011237-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-04-25

000010997

Contested design: 004011237-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 004011237-0002 is rejected.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

BSP Bracket System Polska Sp. z o.o.

Poland (PL)

ul. Pabianicka 26A lok. 3-4, 04-219 Warszawa, Poland

Represented by

Bartłomiej Henryk Tomaszewski

Holder · RCD owner

AGS Sp. z o.o.

Poland (PL)

ul. Kleszczowa 18, 02-485 Warszawa, Poland

Prior art cited (5)

Other⚠ rejected as evidence

console / mounting bracket design

KN1

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Systeme NFT-SL RAPID 290 vertical ADS

www.nft-sl.de · www.nft-sl.de · disclosed 2016-10-20

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Systeme NFT-SL RAPID 290 vertical BAS

www.nft-sl.de · www.nft-sl.de · disclosed 2016-10-22

Patent⚠ rejected as evidence

prior technical design cited late in the proceedings

EP0005837 · disclosed 1979-05-31

Utility model⚠ rejected as evidence

Polish utility model cited late in the proceedings

PL 67635 · Poland

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant alleged lack of novelty and individual character over its KN1 console design and later filed further RAPID, patent and utility-model materials.
  • The holder argued that the alleged prior disclosures were unreliable, largely internal, post-dated or unsupported, and that the late-filed additional designs were inadmissible.
  • The Division found that the untranslated Polish and German materials could not be assessed, the lone affidavit was insufficient, and the late new designs altered the subject matter of the case.
  • Because disclosure of the invoked prior design was not proved under Article 7(1) CDR, the invalidity application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

08.08

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000106559

vs COREgravel UK Ltd

2020-10-08Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000011138

vs HYPERTHERM, INC.

2019-10-16Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000010803

vs Firma Handlowa „tm" Tomasz Filipiak

2019-07-09Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000011036

vs GIGALI Ltd.

2019-03-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000011035

vs GIGALI Ltd.

2019-03-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000010745

vs LOGLI MASSIMO S.P.A.

2018-09-26Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000011038

vs GIGALI Ltd.

2018-07-26Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000011037

vs GIGALI Ltd.

2018-07-10Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088