Invalidity · first instance · 2020-05-25
000104922
Contested design: 001033450-0004
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's fixed costs of EUR 750.
Show verbatim operative text
The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 0010334500004 is declared invalid. The holder bears the applicant's costs, fixed at EUR 750.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
ACCUMA S.P.A.
Italy (IT)
Via Eustachi, 46, 20129 Milano, Italy
Represented by
Giulio Enrico Sironi
Holder · RCD owner
ACCUMALUX
LU
Allée de la Poudrerie, 1899 Kockelscheuer, Luxembourg
Represented by
Prior art cited (6)
manual showing earlier battery lid designs
AlphaCell OPzS Battery Installation and Operation Manual · AlphaCell
publication on battery containers and lids relied on for technical-function analysis
Innovative containers and lids for OPzS-OpzV batteries
storage battery cell cover patent
US1508926A · United States patent · disclosed 1924-09-16
handbook figure showing stationary battery lids with central and lateral holes
Battery Technology Handbook, Figure 7.10 · Marcel Dekker Inc.
engineering manual showing earlier similar battery lid designs
SMG (OpzV) – Valve regulated Recombination Cells – Engineering manual
handbook showing earlier similar battery lid designs
Handbook for Gel-VRLA-Batteries · EXIDE Technologies
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity because the battery lid's visible and hidden features were solely technically dictated, not visible in normal use, and lacked novelty and individual character over earlier disclosures.
- ›The holder argued the lid remained visible in use, alternative designs existed for the contested features, and visual choices gave the design unity and individual character despite technical constraints.
- ›The Invalidity Division found each identified feature of the lid served only technical purposes and the holder did not prove objective aesthetic considerations influenced those choices.
- ›The Division upheld the invalidity application under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 8(1), without examining the remaining grounds.
Deciding panel
- MemberStephan HANNE
- MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
- MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000129383 vs Wenzhou Haotian Electric Co., Ltd. | 2026-03-27 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 8 |
| 000129363 vs Wenzhou Haotian Electric Co., Ltd. | 2026-03-27 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 8 |
| 000131764 vs Dongguan Penghui New Energy Technology Co., Ltd | 2026-03-19 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 8 |
| 000129921 vs SHENZHEN EASTKING TECHNOLOGY CO.,LTD | 2026-03-13 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 8 |
| 000131186 vs Electronic Way Technology Co.,Ltd | 2026-03-09 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 8 |
| 000128636 vs Guangzhou Quemou Trading Co., Ltd. | 2026-02-27 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 8 |
| 000128598 vs Guangzhou Quemou Trading Co., Ltd. | 2026-02-17 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 8 |
| 000129221 vs Shenzhen Guangtuo Da Lighting Co., LTD | 2026-01-27 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 8 |