DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000953492-0023

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-08-13

000102260

Contested design: 000953492-0023

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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. 000953492-0023 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

NBL Europe GmbH

Germany (DE)

Monzastr. 4a, 63225 Langen, Deutschland

Holder · RCD owner

Erwin Müller GmbH

Germany (DE)

Breslauer Str. 34-38, 49808 Lingen (Ems), Deutschland

Prior art cited (4)

Registered RCDD1

wall-mounted tumbler holder with glass

RCD No 000640636-0009 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2007-01-30

Registered RCDD2

wall-mounted tumbler holder with glass

RCD No 000640636-0010 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2007-01-30

National designD3

wall-mounted tumbler holder with glass

CN 300770401 D (application 200730117710.3) · Chinese design publication · disclosed 2008-04-23

CatalogD4

wall-mounted tumbler holder

Article No. 11311A · NBL product catalog · disclosed 2006-12-31

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on earlier bathroom tumbler-holder designs and catalog disclosures predating 17 June 2008.
  • The holder argued the evidence did not prove timely public disclosure of most alleged prior designs and that the cited designs created a different overall impression.
  • The Division accepted disclosure only for D1 to D4, rejected the remaining evidence as insufficient, and found D3 visually incomplete and D1, D2, and D4 materially different from the contested design.
  • The invalidity grounds under Article 25(1)(b) failed, so the application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA

Decision files

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

Locarno classes

23.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000109541

vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd

2020-12-16Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)238
000109481

vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd

2020-12-16Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)238
000109561

vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd

2020-12-16Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)238
000109521

vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd

2020-12-16Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)238
000109461

vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd

2020-12-16Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)238
000105159

vs Ningbo Ontime Imp.&Exp.Co.,Ltd

2019-12-12Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)238
000107040

vs Shenzhen Walikexun Information Technology Co., Ltd.

2019-11-06Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)238
000102499

vs Erwin Müller GmbH

2019-08-14Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)238