Invalidity · first instance · 2020-08-12
000107380
Contested design: 002951335-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application against registered Community design No 002951335-0001 is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(fr)
1. La demande en nullité à l'encontre du dessin ou modèle communautaire enregistré nº 002951335-0001 est rejetée. 2. La demanderesse supporte les frais exposés par la titulaire, fixés à 400 EUR.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Indusmetal Torres, sl.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Camino de las Pozas nº6, 14960 Rute, Espagne
Represented by
Francisco Perez Requena
Holder · RCD owner
Acieries et Laminoirs de Rivesvia PDF extraction
France (FR)
52 Route de Colombe, 38140 Rives, France
Represented by
Prior art cited (3)
GIGA® fence post technical sheet
Clotex Industries technical sheet
GIGA CLIP® fence post technical sheet
Clotex Industries technical sheet
Poteau pour l’édification de clôtures
EP 1 505 226 B1 · European patent publication · disclosed 2006-11-15
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant alleged lack of novelty and individual character over earlier GIGA and GIGA CLIP fence posts, and argued key profile features were technically dictated, relying on technical sheets, catalogues, invoices, an expert report and EP 1 505 226 B1.
- ›Holder disputed prior disclosure, arguing the catalogue was downloaded much later, the invoices did not identify the same product, and the visible front symmetry gave the post an individual, non-purely-functional appearance.
- ›The Division treated Jesús Sahuquillo Huerta’s submission as expert evidence and confirmed Francisco Perez Requena as the applicant’s representative.
- ›It found the undated sheets, catalogue, invoices and declaration did not objectively prove prior disclosure of the alleged earlier designs before filing, so the novelty and individual-character attack failed.
- ›It also rejected the Article 8(1) ground because not all essential features were shown to be dictated solely by technical function; the application was rejected with costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberJessica Norma LEWIS
- MemberMichelle Marie DELLACHERIE
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000131944 vs Jinsong Liu | 2026-04-29 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 7 |
| 000128757 vs Axue Jin | 2026-03-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 7 |
| 000127246 vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG | 2026-03-05 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 7 |
| 000127279 vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG | 2026-03-05 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 7 |
| 000127243 vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG | 2026-03-05 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 7 |
| 000127245 vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG | 2026-03-05 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 7 |
| 000127244 vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG | 2026-03-05 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 7 |
| 000127241 vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG | 2026-02-27 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 7 |