DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002844498-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-10-10

000102599

Contested design: 002844498-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant is ordered to pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Se deniega la solicitud de declaración de nulidad del dibujo o modelo comunitario registrado nº 0028444980001. 2. Se condena al solicitante a que sufrague las costas del titular, fijadas en 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Etac AB

Sweden (SE)

Färögatan 33, 164 51 Kista, Suecia

Holder · RCD owner

Tecnimoem 97, S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Crtra. Logroño-Mendavia, km. 5, 31230 Viana, Navarra, España

Prior art cited (4)

National designD1

Duschhilfesessel und -fussstütze

498123250001 · DesignView / Germany · disclosed 1999-08-10

National designD2

DUSCH- OCH TOALETTSTOL

65608-0001 · DesignView / Sweden · disclosed 2000-09-27

National designD3

DUSCH- OCH TOALETTSTOL

65608-0002 · DesignView / Sweden · disclosed 2000-09-27

National designD4

FOTSÖD DÄRAV

65608-0003 · DesignView / Sweden · disclosed 2000-09-27

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying mainly on earlier German and Swedish wheelchair design registrations D1-D4.
  • The holder argued the cited designs differed in the backrest, seat, armrests, handle and footrest, and that design freedom was constrained for hygiene wheelchairs.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of D1-D4, found the earlier design was not identical to the contested RCD, and held the remaining differences shaped a different overall impression.
  • The invalidity application was rejected because the contested RCD was new and had individual character; the applicant was ordered to pay costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER
  • MemberÁlvaro SESMA MERINO

Decision files

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

Locarno classes

12.12

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
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
000104299

vs Milan Bříštěla

2019-07-29Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)128