DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002437889-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-07-04

000103079

Contested design: 002437889-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicants must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 0024378890001 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerinnen tragen die Kosten des Inhabers, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

37Grad GmbHvia PDF extraction

Austria (AT)

Reitgraben 1a, 6111 Volders, Österreich

Holder · RCD owner

Hannes Lafner

Austria (AT)

Tulferberg 51, 6075 Tulfes, Österreich

Represented by

Franz-Martin Orou

Prior art cited (5)

PublicationD1

newspaper publication showing the Zirbenwürfel decorative cube

Zeitungsbericht „Die Neue“ vom 8./9. Juli 2007 · Die Neue

Web disclosureD2

online-shop listing for “Zirbenwürfel 70mm”

www.fengtirolis.at · www.fengtirolis.at · disclosed 2010-07-01

Web disclosureD3

Amazon product page for Scalino Holzkugelbahn showing cubes with top and side holes

https://www.amazon.de/Modellbaukasten-Glockenturm-Scalino-Holzkugelbahn/dp/B001ACMSFW · Amazon · disclosed 2008-05-27

Web disclosureD4

Amazon product page for Hape E6014 Quadrilla Loop de Loop showing comparison cubes

https://www.amazon.de/Hape-E6014-Quadrilla-Loop/dp/B00BJEYQJW/ref=sr_1_15?s=toys&ie=UTF8&qid=1531407020&sr=1-15&keywords=quadrilla · Amazon · disclosed 2013-03-29

CatalogD5

catalog extract depicting a decorative cube

emotion factory GmbH catalog (2009) · emotion factory GmbH

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6(1)Article 7Article 14(1)Article 15Article 25(1)(c)

Argument summary

  • The applicants argued the contested cube design lacked novelty and individual character over D1 to D5 and also claimed Dr. Wolfgang Eder was the rightful owner.
  • The holder disputed identity and overall impression, denied any proven entitlement of the applicants or Dr. Eder, and maintained the design remained new and distinctive.
  • The Division accepted that D1 to D5 had been disclosed before filing, but found none identical and held the top recess, wood shavings, angled bore and protruding white bottle created a different overall impression.
  • The ownership-based ground failed because only a national court can determine entitlement under Article 14; the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicants.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

11.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000130246

vs Giuliana FERRAROTTI

2026-05-15REUD invalidated116
000131904

vs Lang Huang

2026-04-20REUD invalidated116
000130401

vs KROKIDO GROUP s.r.o.

2025-12-10REUD invalidated116
000126956

vs Anna Krystyniak

2025-10-15REUD invalidated116
000126975

vs Anna Krystyniak

2025-10-15REUD invalidated116
000126957

vs Anna Krystyniak

2025-10-15REUD invalidated116
000126958

vs Anna Krystyniak

2025-10-15REUD invalidated116
000127536

vs Shuxun Dai

2025-03-28REUD invalidated116