DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005824869-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-10-23

000107620

Contested design: 005824869-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application inadmissible

The invalidity application is rejected as inadmissible, and the invalidity fee is not refunded.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected as inadmissible. 2. The fee for the application for a declaration of invalidity will not be refunded.

CostsNo costs order

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Felix Severin Mackvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Oberer Metzgerbach 29, 73728 Esslingen, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

Duolla s.c. Aleksandra Pacho, Aleksandra Sosnowska-Krywultvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Tadeusza Kościuszki 55, 42-290 Blachownia, Poland

Represented by

AAK Kancelaria Prawna i Patentowa

Anna Korbela

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCD

earlier design cited by the applicant

RCD No 002947721-0001 · EUIPO register

Registered RCD

earlier design cited by the applicant

RCD No 002947721-0002 · EUIPO register

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(f)Article 25(3)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity under Article 25(1)(f) CDR, alleging the contested RCD copied his earlier designs and infringed his copyright-related rights.
  • The holder filed through a professional representative, but the decision records no substantive defence because the case was resolved on admissibility.
  • The Division found the application lacked the required particulars on the allegedly copyrighted work, the applicable national copyright law, and the applicant’s entitlement to the earlier right.
  • Because the applicant did not cure those deficiencies after invitation, the application was rejected as inadmissible and the fee was not refunded.

Deciding panel

  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberKelly BENNETT

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

26.05

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000121816

vs AMV Technology s.r.o.

2024-07-12Art 25(1)(f)267
000121836

vs AMV Technology s.r.o.

2024-07-12Art 25(1)(f)267
000106699

vs Shenzhen Juku Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.

2020-05-19Invalidity application rejected266
000104459

vs EGLO LEUCHTEN GMBH

2019-11-21Invalidity application rejected266
000104419

vs Lukas Staffen

2019-11-04Invalidity application rejected266
000102639

vs "Durable" Hunke & Jochheim GmbH & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft

2019-08-21Invalidity application rejected266
000102399

vs INTAV S.R.L.

2019-08-09Invalidity application rejected266
000101440

vs KARE Design GmbH

2019-07-09Invalidity application rejected266