Invalidity · first instance · 2019-07-19
000101799
Contested design: 000127204-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected and the applicant must bear the holder's fixed costs of EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 000127204-0001 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
Zaun Limited
United Kingdom (GB)
Steel Drive, Wolverhampton, WV10 9ED, United Kingdom
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Betafence Holding BVBAvia PDF extraction
Belgium (BE)
3 Square Village/Rijvisschestraat 126, 9052 Gent, Belgium
Represented by
Thomas Louis Brand
Prior art cited (9)
PS 100 security fence post
PulseSecure 2003 Catalogue · PulseSecure 2003 Catalogue
PS 100S security fence post
PulseSecure 2003 Catalogue · PulseSecure 2003 Catalogue
Master Halco steel fence post design
www.fenceonline.com (Internet Archive) · Internet Archive / www.fenceonline.com · disclosed 2003-05-04
fence post profile disclosed in US patent application
US2001/0005010 A1 · US patent publication · disclosed 2001-06-28
fence post profile disclosed in US patent application
US2001/0005010 A1 · US patent publication · disclosed 2001-06-28
fence post profile disclosed in US patent application
US2001/0005010 A1 · US patent publication · disclosed 2001-06-28
fence post profile disclosed in US patent application
US2001/0005010 A1 · US patent publication · disclosed 2001-06-28
fence post profile disclosed in US patent application
US2001/0005010 A1 · US patent publication · disclosed 2001-06-28
fence post profile disclosed in US patent application
US2003/0209701 · US patent publication · disclosed 2003-11-13
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant argued the fence-post design was solely dictated by technical function under Article 8(1) CDR and, alternatively, lacked novelty and individual character over earlier catalog, web, and US patent disclosures.
- ›Holder replied that functional designs can still be protected, aesthetic considerations shaped the post's U-profile, flanges, and folds, and the cited prior art either was unproven or still created different overall impressions.
- ›The Division found the applicant had not proved the appearance was solely technically dictated because expert evidence, market materials, and alternative designs showed visual considerations could have influenced the design.
- ›It accepted the main prior disclosures but held that, despite limited designer freedom, the cited designs differed in significant features and produced different overall impressions, so the RCD remained valid and the application was rejected.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
- MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000105879 vs Bernhard Hirsch | 2020-02-04 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000104699 vs DACHPOL Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością | 2020-01-30 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000104079 vs SUZHOU 3DS ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., Ltd. | 2019-12-12 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000104060 vs SUZHOU 3DS ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., Ltd. | 2019-12-12 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000104059 vs SUZHOU 3DS ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., Ltd. | 2019-12-12 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000106301 vs Sports Partner | 2019-09-27 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000106281 vs Sports Partner | 2019-09-27 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000106280 vs Sports Partner | 2019-09-27 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |