DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001292122-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-10-16

000011138

Contested design: 001292122-0002

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 001292122-0002 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

B&Bartoni, spol. s r.o.

Czechia (CZ)

Doubravička 18, 294 30 Dolní Cetno, Czech Republic

Holder · RCD owner

Hypertherm, Inc.via PDF extraction

United States (US)

P.O. Box 5010, Etna Road, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755, United States of America

Prior art cited (1)

Patent

international patent application showing a nozzle design relied on against the contested RCD

WO 2009/062205 A2 · WIPO · disclosed 2009-05-14

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the nozzle was a component part of a complex product, was not visible in normal use, and lacked novelty over earlier patent disclosures, especially WO 2009/062205.
  • The holder replied that the nozzle was a consumable rather than a component part of a complex product, that replacement and purchase formed part of normal use, and that the prior design was materially different.
  • The Division held that the nozzle was a component part of a complex product but remained at least partly visible during normal use in an unshielded configuration, so Article 4(2) did not exclude protection.
  • It accepted WO 2009/062205 as prior disclosure but found non-immaterial differences in the visible features of the compared nozzles, so the novelty attack failed and the invalidity application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI

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

08.05

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000106559

vs COREgravel UK Ltd

2020-10-08Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000010803

vs Firma Handlowa „tm" Tomasz Filipiak

2019-07-09Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000010997

vs AGS Sp. z o.o.

2019-04-25Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000011036

vs GIGALI Ltd.

2019-03-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000011035

vs GIGALI Ltd.

2019-03-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000010745

vs LOGLI MASSIMO S.P.A.

2018-09-26Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000011038

vs GIGALI Ltd.

2018-07-26Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000011037

vs GIGALI Ltd.

2018-07-10Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088