Invalidity · first instance · 2019-10-25
000104559
Contested design: 003655646-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear 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 003655646-0001 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
Tsiva EOOD
Bulgaria (BG)
20 Staroselska str., 2260 Svoge, Bulgaria
Represented by
Tsvetelina Chitakova
Holder · RCD owner
Nueva EOODvia PDF extraction
Bulgaria (BG)
Alexandar Veliki str. 48, 4th floor, 8000 Burgas, Bulgaria
Represented by
Atanas Kostov
Prior art cited (7)
Screenshot of a video depicting part of a beekeeping frame and plastic foundations.
http://www.youtube.com · YouTube · disclosed 2013-06-12
Google video result linking to a YouTube video depicting plastic foundations in a frame.
Beekeeping: Plastic foundations · Google / YouTube · disclosed 2014-09-03
Google Bulgaria and Vbox7 screenshots depicting a frame and plastic foundations.
http://www.vbox7.com · Google Bulgaria / Vbox7 · disclosed 2014-09-22
Facebook post linking to a YouTube video depicting a beekeeping frame.
http://www.facebook.com · Facebook / YouTube · disclosed 2015-01-05
Internet Archive excerpt depicting a beekeeping frame.
http://beesmarket.com · Internet Archive / beesmarket.com · disclosed 2016-06-12
Internet Archive excerpt depicting a beekeeping frame.
http://www.mevi-bg.com · Internet Archive / mevi-bg.com · disclosed 2016-03-19
CD containing two undated videos showing the assembly of a beekeeping frame.
CD submitted by the applicant
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character and argued that the design's features were solely dictated by technical function.
- ›The holder disputed both grounds, arguing the evidence did not show identical prior trap-frames, many disclosures fell within the grace period, and the cell shape created a different overall impression.
- ›The Division found the cited disclosures and undated videos did not clearly and reliably prove an earlier design made available to the public under Article 7 CDR.
- ›It also found the applicant had not shown that all essential appearance features were solely dictated by technical function, so the invalidity application was rejected.
Deciding panel
- MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
- MemberMichelle Marie DELLACHERIE
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000106219 vs EUZIEL International GmbH | 2019-12-12 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 8 |
| 000102579 vs JULIUS-K9 Zrt. | 2019-06-18 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 8 |
| 000116997 vs Zechuang Zheng | 2022-06-22 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 7 |
| 000116927 vs Jakub Paško | 2022-06-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 7 |
| 000111001 vs GRANDE FINALE Gabriela Myślak | 2021-03-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 7 |
| 000131828 vs Weiming Li | 2026-04-21 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 5 |
| 000129301 vs Yu Bao | 2026-01-23 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 5 |
| 000129536 vs WENJIU YANG | 2025-10-28 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 5 |