DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002107466-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-07-29

000104299

Contested design: 002107466-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay 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 002107466-0001 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

Sia Smart Aero

LV

Baldones iela 15, Ogre, Latvia

Holder · RCD owner

Milan Bříštěla

Czechia (CZ)

Václava Kulíška 1224, 68605 Uherské Hradiště, Mařatice, Czechia

Represented by

Robert Nešpůrek

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosureAnnex 1⚠ rejected as evidence

Bristell, Bristell RG and Bristell Classic aircraft photographs linked to Friedrichshafen 2011

www.bristell.com · bristell.com

Web disclosureAnnex 3⚠ rejected as evidence

Website text stating Bristell Classic sales began in 2011 and Bristell RG was developed in 2012

www.bristell.com · bristell.com

PublicationAnnex 4⚠ rejected as evidence

Buyer's guide stating the Bristell RG version was chosen for the 2011 Friedrichshafen show

World Directory of Light Aviation 2015-16 Wings of the World Buyer's Guide · World Directory of Light Aviation

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, alleging the holder had disclosed the same aircraft design before the RCD filing date.
  • The holder filed no observations in reply.
  • The Division found the evidence did not clearly identify which Bristell model was disclosed in 2011 or show that design with sufficient certainty and image quality.
  • Because prior disclosure under Article 7 was not proven, the Division did not assess novelty or individual character further and rejected the application.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberKelly BENNETT

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

12.07

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000113981

vs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd

2022-04-08Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128
000104359

vs Lohia e-mobility GmbH

2020-06-23Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128
000107759

vs A & F S.r.l.

2020-06-10Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128
000107760

vs A & F S.r.l.

2020-06-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128
000103799

vs LT Fördertechnik

2019-11-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128
000102599

vs Tecnimoem Care, S.L.

2019-10-10Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128
000103619

vs Airwheel Europe S. A.

2019-09-17Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128
000011186

vs LA MARE Spółka z o.o.

2019-08-05Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128