DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001379754-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-05-26

000105981

Contested design: 001379754-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay EUR 750 in costs.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 001379754-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Dragflow S.R.L.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via Satiro, 11, 37121 Verona, Italy

Holder · RCD owner

Lännen MCE Oy

Finland (FI)

Hirvikoskentie 242, 32210 Loimaa, Finland

Represented by

Kolster OY AB

Prior art cited (3)

Publication

Watermaster machine Classic IV shown in the holder's newsletter

Newsletter 2011 · Watermaster newsletter

Publication

Watermaster Classic IV dredger shown in the holder's newsletter

Newsletter 2012 · Watermaster newsletter

Web disclosure

Internet Archive capture of the holder's 'Brochures (PDF)' webpage linking Watermaster newsletters and Watermaster Classic IV

http://www.watermaster.fi · Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2012-07-09

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 5(2)Article 7(1)Article 7(2)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty, arguing the same Watermaster machine had been disclosed before filing through the holder's 2011 and 2012 newsletters and website archives.
  • The holder denied identity and challenged the Wayback Machine evidence, arguing the newsletter models differed in the support arms and claws and that the archive was unreliable.
  • The Division accepted the newsletters and archived webpage as sufficient disclosure evidence and found no material visual differences between the earlier machine and the contested design.
  • The application was upheld because the contested RCD lacked novelty under Article 5(1)(b); the Division did not need to decide the Article 8(1) point.

Deciding panel

  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO

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

15.04

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000132185

vs Baofeng LIU

2026-05-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)158
000132204

vs Baofeng LIU

2026-05-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)158
000132064

vs Han Sheng

2026-05-06REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)158
000131827

vs linbo GAO

2026-04-28REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)158
000131826

vs linbo GAO

2026-04-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)158
000131787

vs linbo GAO

2026-04-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)158
000131088

vs ZhiAo Zhou

2026-03-18REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)158
000129841

vs Suzhou Kingbow Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd

2026-01-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)158