DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003086735-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-11-04

000103799

Contested design: 003086735-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. Nr. 0030867350001 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Der Antragsteller trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Attila Nagy

Germany (DE)

Beckhauser Str. 12, 40699 Erkrath, Deutschland

Holder · RCD owner

LT Fördertechnik GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Stuttgarter Straße 23, 74211 Leingarten, Deutschland

Represented by

Meyer & Meyer

Prior art cited (1)

Prior use⚠ rejected as evidence

alleged prior disclosure of a conveyor installation/module corresponding to the contested design

LogiMAT 2015, Stuttgart · LogiMAT trade fair, Stuttgart · disclosed 2015-02-10

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty, alleging the contested conveyor design had already been disclosed at the LogiMAT 2015 trade fair in Stuttgart.
  • The holder argued the photos showed different conveyor installations and disputed that the alleged earlier disclosures matched the contested design or were proven on the claimed dates.
  • The Division held the applicant's exhibits were undated, contradictory, and insufficiently linked to the alleged prior design, so public disclosure under Article 7 was not proven.
  • Because prior disclosure of an identical earlier design was not established, the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA

Decision files

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

Locarno classes

12.05

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
000102599

vs Tecnimoem Care, S.L.

2019-10-10Invalidity 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