DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004055408-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-10-08

000106579

Contested design: 004055408-0001

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 004055408-0001 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

Multi-Edge · YouTube; product material; invoices

Web disclosure

EverEdge lawn edger

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the contested lawn-edger design lacked novelty and individual character over its Multi-Edge product and the EverEdge product, and that key features were dictated solely by technical function.
  • Holder replied that Multi-Edge was not disclosed before the priority date, EverEdge evidence was weak or undated, the spike design differed materially, and designer freedom was not significantly constrained.
  • The Division found no evidence that the contested design's features were solely dictated by technical function and accepted only the EverEdge YouTube disclosure as prior art under Article 7.
  • Comparing the disclosed EverEdge design with the contested RCD, the Division held the rounded versus angular spike shapes created a different overall impression, so the RCD remained new and had individual character.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to bear the holder's representation costs fixed at EUR 400.

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

08.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000122442

vs CZECHPOL servis s.r.o.

2024-06-18Art 25(1)(b)087
000122554

vs CZECHPOL servis s.r.o.

2024-06-18Art 25(1)(b)087
000122334

vs PRETENSADOS DURÁN, S. L.

2024-06-06Art 25(1)(b)087
000122636

vs Wenzhou Falante Lock Industry Co. LTD.

2024-02-02Art 25(1)(b)087
000120319

vs MARTOM

2023-07-19Art 25(1)(b)087
000119299

vs Arne Thuresson Byggmaterial AB

2023-03-07Art 25(1)(b)087
000118040

vs Arne Thuresson Byggmaterial AB

2023-03-01Art 25(1)(b)087
000118177

vs MetroVision GmbH

2022-12-16Art 25(1)(b)087