Invalidity · first instance · 2019-06-17
000101619
Contested design: 001935123-0001
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 0019351230001 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
EIZO GmbH
Germany (DE)
Siemensallee 84, 76187 Karlsruhe, Deutschland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
S-CAPE GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Komturstr. 18a, 12099 Berlin, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
alleged earlier flat-screen television and monitor designs with black-framed screen and rectangular control element or keyboard
Sony KDL-32EX500; TechniSat TechniLine 32 HD; Philips 42PFL3604; Samsung LE-40M71; Toshiba 42WL671 · models cited in the invalidity application
internet printouts, brochures, catalogues, case-study and website materials allegedly showing earlier medical monitor and operating-room console designs
holder website, MEDICAL MULTICONSOLE printout, applicant catalogues, case study, Deutsches Ärzteblatt article and henke-partner.de extract
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested medical-screen design lacked novelty and individual character in light of earlier flat-screen televisions, monitors and operating-room console displays disclosed before filing.
- ›The holder replied that the application was inadmissible for lack of proper reproductions of the earlier designs, that disclosure had not been proven, and that the contested design was new and had individual character.
- ›The Division held the invalidity application admissible but found the cited annexes and product references did not provide concrete, objective proof that any earlier design had been disclosed before the contested RCD's filing date.
- ›Because prior disclosure under Article 7 was not established, the claims based on lack of novelty and individual character failed and the invalidity application was rejected.
Deciding panel
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
- MemberIvanka IVANOVA
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000107739 vs Shenzhen Sinobry Electronic Ltd | 2020-01-16 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 8 |
| 000102939 vs Andres Meseguer Lozano | 2019-06-05 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 8 |
| 000010861 vs Adam Hall GmbH | 2018-09-28 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 8 |
| 000129183 vs Yi Duan | 2025-09-16 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 7 |
| 000124156 vs Autoelektronika Maciej Świdnicki | 2024-07-02 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 7 |
| 000121322 vs Shenzhen Hongshi Trading Co., Ltd. | 2024-02-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 7 |
| 000116928 vs Nintendo Co., Ltd. | 2022-08-31 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 7 |
| 000116470 vs SENOR TECH CO., LTD. | 2022-06-09 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 7 |