DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004055408-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-10-08

000106559

Contested design: 004055408-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay 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 004055408-0002 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

Aggregates International B.V.via PDF extraction

Netherlands (NL)

Bedrijvenstraat 2ª, 4283JH Giessen, Netherlands

Represented by

Vincent Veldhuis

Holder · RCD owner

COREgravel UK Ltd

United Kingdom (GB)

Units 1-3 Calves Lane Yard Bellswood Lane, Iver Buckinghamshire SL0 0LU, United Kingdom

Represented by

Dolleymores

Prior art cited (2)

Prior use⚠ rejected as evidence

Multi-Edge lawn edger

YouTube materials and invoices

Web disclosure

EverEdge lawn edger

YouTube video 'EverEdge – How to install EverEdge & landscape edging' · YouTube · disclosed 2013-12-17

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 8(1)Article 7(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character and argued that the spike and edging features were dictated solely by technical function.
  • The holder said the Multi-Edge evidence post-dated or failed to prove prior disclosure, the EverEdge design created a different overall impression, and Article 8(1) was unsupported.
  • The Division found no evidence that the contested features were solely technically dictated, rejected Multi-Edge as unproven prior disclosure, and accepted only the EverEdge YouTube disclosure.
  • The Division held the contested design was new and had individual character over EverEdge, so the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
  • 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

08.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000011138

vs HYPERTHERM, INC.

2019-10-16Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000010803

vs Firma Handlowa „tm" Tomasz Filipiak

2019-07-09Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000010997

vs AGS Sp. z o.o.

2019-04-25Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000011036

vs GIGALI Ltd.

2019-03-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000011035

vs GIGALI Ltd.

2019-03-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000010745

vs LOGLI MASSIMO S.P.A.

2018-09-26Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000011038

vs GIGALI Ltd.

2018-07-26Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088
000011037

vs GIGALI Ltd.

2018-07-10Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)088