DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002323154-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-02-04

000105879

Contested design: 002323154-0002

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. 0023231540002 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten des Inhabers, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Osmo Holz und Color GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Affhüppen Esch 12, 48231 Warendorf, Deutschland

Holder · RCD owner

Bernhard Hirsch

Germany (DE)

Kroißenmühle 2, 94535 Eging am See, Deutschland

Prior art cited (3)

National designD1

Decken und Wandverkleidungen

M91 03 701 · Geschmacksmusterblatt · disclosed 1992-03-25

National designD2

Latten, Leisten, Paneele, Paneele zum Täfeln, Schalungsbretter

402010000959-0001 · Geschmacksmusterblatt · disclosed 2010-04-16

Registered RCDD3

Holzelemente, Fassadenverkleidungen

001615824-0008 · Blatt für Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster · disclosed 2011-03-10

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over German designs D1 and D2 and Community design D3.
  • The holder argued the contested design remained new and had individual character because the cited designs either lacked comparable side views or created a different overall impression.
  • The Division found D1, D2 and D3 were properly disclosed but none was identical to the contested design, so novelty was not destroyed.
  • The Division held the side view contributed materially to the overall impression and that the contested panel's minimalist profile differed sufficiently from the prior designs.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's costs of EUR 400.

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

25.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000104699

vs DACHPOL Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością

2020-01-30Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000104059

vs SUZHOU 3DS ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., Ltd.

2019-12-12Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000104079

vs SUZHOU 3DS ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., Ltd.

2019-12-12Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000104060

vs SUZHOU 3DS ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., Ltd.

2019-12-12Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000106281

vs Sports Partner

2019-09-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000106301

vs Sports Partner

2019-09-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000106280

vs Sports Partner

2019-09-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000106300

vs Sports Partner

2019-09-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258