DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005879517-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-09-04

000106150

Contested design: 005879517-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must bear the applicant's costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 005879517-0001 is declared invalid. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Wheel Trade Dariusz Wichliński

Poland (PL)

Wabcz nr 60 lok. 2, 86-212 Stolno, Poland

Represented by

Robert Rozbicki

Holder · RCD owner

Dizingvia PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

Comuna Brusturi, Judetul Neat, 617106 Brusturi, Romania

Represented by

KEYPI – Agentie de Propietate Intelectuala S.R.L.

Cristina Adriana Sîrbu, Cristina Adriana Vultur

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosureD1

vehicle wheel rim design shown in a Z-Performance Wheels Facebook post

Z-Performance Wheels Facebook post · disclosed 2017-12-01

Web disclosureD2

vehicle wheel rim design shown in an al13wheels Instagram post

al13wheels Instagram post · disclosed 2017-10-11

Web disclosureD3

vehicle wheel rim design shown in an al13wheels Instagram post

al13wheels Instagram post · disclosed 2017-08-30

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 7(2)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on earlier wheel designs disclosed on Facebook and Instagram before the RCD filing date.
  • The holder filed no observations and did not dispute the alleged disclosures.
  • The Division accepted D1, D2 and D3 as prior public disclosures and found the visible front-wheel features substantially the same, with logo differences not affecting overall appearance.
  • The application was upheld because the contested design lacked novelty over D1 and lacked individual character over D2 and D3.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER

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

12.16

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000124336

vs Radosław Pryba

2026-05-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)128
000129038

vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)128
000129077

vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)128
000128979

vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)128
000129039

vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)128
000129055

vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)128
000129075

vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)128
000129076

vs Robu Aktiengesellschaft

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)128