DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004539302-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-04-06

000106799

Contested design: 004539302-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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 004539302-0001 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

ESSAtech s.r.o.via PDF extraction

Czechia (CZ)

Pristoupim 85, 28201 Pristoupim, Czech Republic

Represented by

Jaroslav Novotný

Holder · RCD owner

ADS Leszek Kowalik, Bartłomiej Włodarczyk spółka cywilnavia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul.Joachima Lelewela 23, 41-219 Sosnowiec, Poland

Prior art cited (2)

Prior use

Photographic documentation of the internal parts of a vehicle key, with examples of both the holder’s product and competitor products.

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Images of designs of the same type of products with links to different websites, submitted in the rejoinder to show similar earlier designs.

different websites

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 8(1)Article 8(2)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity under Article 25(1)(b) CDR, arguing the design’s circular elements, connecting strip, circuit placement and colour were dictated by technical function and interconnection requirements.
  • The holder replied that the applicant had not substantiated any lack of individual character, that the cited products were irrelevant or post-dated filing, and that the same function could be achieved with different shapes.
  • The Division treated the case only under Articles 8(1) and 8(2), rejecting the later prior-art theory because it was not properly defined in the application and the rejoinder images were inadequate.
  • It found insufficient evidence that all essential features were solely technically dictated; even if some interconnection features were excluded from protection, the design as a whole could not be invalidated.
  • The application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder’s fixed representation costs of EUR 400.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA
  • 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

14.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131484

vs Junxian Wei

2026-05-20Art 25(1)(b)147
000127656

vs Suzhou Bimeng Technology Co., Ltd.

2025-09-26Art 25(1)(b)147
000127957

vs Suzhou Bimeng Technology Co., Ltd.

2025-05-28Art 25(1)(b)147
000126456

vs Shenzhen Weibo Technology Co., Ltd.

2024-12-12Art 25(1)(b)147
000106800

vs ADS LESZEK KOWALIK, BARTŁOMIEJ WŁODARCZYK SPÓŁKA CYWILNA

2020-04-06Art 25(1)(b)147
000130850

vs Michael AMARA

2026-04-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)145
000131224

vs Shenzhen Ruixin Fengshuo Electronic Co., Ltd

2026-03-06REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)145
000130970

vs Liu yanqiong

2026-02-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)145