DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003056449-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-06-12

000104479

Contested design: 003056449-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's fixed costs of EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0030564490001 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

ACTIVA Grillküche GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Wilhelmstraße 10, 95100 Selb, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

TARGA GmbH

Germany (DE)

Coesterweg 45, 59494 Soest, Germany

Prior art cited (3)

Prior useD1⚠ rejected as evidence

grill shown in an alleged 2014 offer letter from Guangzhou Hungkay Co. Ltd.

letter from Guangzhou Hungkay Co. Ltd. (Annex 2 / 2a)

Utility modelD2

charcoal grill protected as a Chinese utility model

CN 204410600 · Chinese utility model publication · disclosed 2015-06-24

OtherD3⚠ rejected as evidence

grill design allegedly published by the applicant

disclosed 2016-04-05

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5Article 6Article 7(1)Article 7(2)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on three earlier grill designs, including a 2014 offer, Chinese utility model D2, and an alleged self-publication.
  • The holder denied the alleged prior disclosures, challenged D1 as unreliable, and argued D2 fell within the Article 7(2) grace period because the design originated from its predecessor in title.
  • The Division found D2 had been published but treated it as a grace-period self-disclosure, disregarded the late translation and insufficient proof for D1, and found D3 wholly unsubstantiated.
  • Because none of D1 to D3 qualified as prior disclosed designs capable of supporting the claims under Articles 5 and 6, the invalidity application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • 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

07.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129182

vs Guangzhou L-TEK Enterprise Co.,Ltd

2025-09-25Art 25(1)(b)077
000120871

vs Chuang-Kang Machinery Technology Co., Ltd

2025-01-16Art 25(1)(b)077
000122014

vs EDIESI SL

2023-09-07Art 25(1)(b)077
000118726

vs DAKA RESEARCH INC.

2023-04-27Art 25(1)(b)077
000119513

vs Weiming Li

2023-04-14Art 25(1)(b)077
000118241

vs Noi srl

2023-01-25Art 25(1)(b)077
000116574

vs Horizons Group (London) Limited

2022-11-16Art 25(1)(b)077
000118157

vs Qing Wang

2022-11-09Art 25(1)(b)077