Invalidity · first instance · 2019-07-19
000104300
Contested design: 002107466-0002
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 002107466-0002 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
Sia Smart Aero
LV
Baldones iela 15, Ogre, Latvia
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Milan Bříštěla
Czechia (CZ)
Václava Kulíška 1224, 68605 Uherské Hradiště – Mařatice, the Czech Republic
Represented by
Robert Nešpůrek
Prior art cited (1)
'Bristell' aircraft design allegedly shown at the AERO Friedrichshafen exhibition
AERO Friedrichshafen exhibition; supported by bristell.com and World Directory of Light Aviation 2015-16 · disclosed 2011-04-13
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, alleging prior disclosure of an identical Bristell aircraft design at AERO Friedrichshafen in April 2011.
- ›The applicant relied on website printouts, an exhibition press release, and a buyer's guide; the holder filed no observations in reply.
- ›The Division found the evidence unclear as to which Bristell model was disclosed, when precisely it was disclosed, and what its full design looked like.
- ›Because disclosure under Article 7(1) and a usable comparison were not proven, the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |