000102439

• ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and at least lack of individual character, relying on prior disclosure of its Series 113 bathroom hook in catalogues and at trade fairs before the contested filing date.
• ›The holder argued the evidence did not prove disclosure because the catalogues lacked clear publication details and the sworn statements came from non-neutral company officers; it also denied any novelty or individual-character conflict.
• ›The Division held the 2006 catalogue extracts corroborated the sworn statements and, assessed together, proved public disclosure of the earlier design before the contested RCD filing date under Article 7(1) CDR.
• ›It found only minor differences between the compared double-hook designs, which did not alter the very similar overall impression on the informed user, so the contested RCD lacked individual character.
• ›The invalidity application was upheld, the contested RCD was declared invalid, and costs of EUR 750 were awarded against the holder.

• MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
• MemberNatascha GALPERIN
• MemberIvanka IVANOVA

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