Invalidity · first instance · 2019-04-26
000101980
Contested design: 004050821-0001
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 004050821-0001 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
Dozbud Easy Drive sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Mikołaja Kopernika 38 lok. 1-2, 05-091 Ząbki, Poland
Represented by
Marta Malgorzata Krzyśków-Szymkowicz
Holder · RCD owner
Solus Spółka Jawna Ryszard Sołtyk Jakub Sołtykvia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Myślenicka 4, 32 031 Mogilany, Poland
Represented by
Arkadiusz Michalak
Prior art cited (5)
anti-skid devices for vehicles
RCD No 002855395-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-08-17
Facebook post showing an anti-skid device on a wheel laid out flat
Facebook · disclosed 2016-11-04
Facebook post showing an anti-skid device in its packaging
Facebook · disclosed 2016-10-03
Facebook post showing an anti-skid device on a wheel standing upright
Facebook · disclosed 2016-09-26
Polish utility model registration extract with views of an anti-skid device
W. 124678 · Polish Patent Office · disclosed 2017-06-19
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and conflict with its earlier RCD, relying on the earlier RCD, Facebook posts, and a Polish utility model extract.
- ›Holder argued that the Article 25(1)(d) claim was inadmissible because the earlier RCD originally belonged to another person.
- ›The Division treated Dozbud Easy Drive as the relevant applicant after transfer of the earlier RCD and found the earlier registered design produced a different overall impression.
- ›The Division held the Facebook posts and utility model extract did not prove a qualifying prior disclosure under Article 7 before the contested filing date.
- ›The application was rejected in full and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIOVA
- MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000113981 vs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd | 2022-04-08 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000104359 vs Lohia e-mobility GmbH | 2020-06-23 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000107759 vs A & F S.r.l. | 2020-06-10 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000107760 vs A & F S.r.l. | 2020-06-04 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000103799 vs LT Fördertechnik | 2019-11-04 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000102599 vs Tecnimoem Care, S.L. | 2019-10-10 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000103619 vs Airwheel Europe S. A. | 2019-09-17 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |
| 000011186 vs LA MARE Spółka z o.o. | 2019-08-05 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 8 |