DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006277935-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-11-04

000107860

Contested design: 006277935-0004

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0062779350004 is rejected, and the applicant is ordered to pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Se deniega la solicitud de declaración de nulidad del dibujo o modelo comunitario registrado nº 0062779350004. 2. Se condena al solicitante a que sufrague las costas del titular, fijadas en 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Colom Bakery Equipment, S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Avenida Enrique Gimeno, 100, 12006 Castellón, España

Represented by

Ana Otero Iglesias

Holder · RCD owner

Cibernética para la panificación S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Camino Els Lladres, 4 y 6, 12550 Almassora (Castellón), España

Represented by

Arcade & Asociados

Prior art cited (6)

OtherD1

Prior bread-making machine design from the disclosed model 93 / annexes 7-17.

Annexes 7-17

OtherD2

Prior bread-making machine design from the disclosed model 93 / annexes 7-17.

Annexes 7-17

OtherD3

Prior bread-making machine design from the disclosed model 93 / annexes 7-17; the reproduced view bears the MASPANVA mark.

Annexes 7-17

OtherD4

Prior bread-making machine design from the disclosed model 93 / annexes 7-17.

Annexes 7-17

OtherD5

Prior bread-making machine design from the disclosed model 93 / annexes 7-17.

Annexes 7-17

OtherD6

Prior bread-making machine design from the disclosed model 93 / annexes 7-17.

Annexes 7-17

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, arguing the contested bread-making machine had long been disclosed through model 93 materials and other earlier machines.
  • The holder argued the design remained new and individual, challenged the reliability and legality of several emails and declarations, and said the cited images were insufficient for proper comparison.
  • The Division accepted disclosure only for D1-D6 drawn from the model 93 / annexes 7-17 evidence, but found none of those earlier designs identical to the contested RCD.
  • The Division also found the contested design produced a different overall impression because the lower support structure materially differed, so the invalidity application was rejected and costs awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esSpanishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

31.00

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000128976

vs Dongguan Keewey Electrical Technology Co., Ltd.

2025-08-04Art 25(1)(b)317
000112641

vs CIBERNÉTICA PARA LA PANIFICACIÓN, S.L.

2021-06-22Art 25(1)(b)317
000102139

vs Cong Qiang LU

2019-03-29Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)317
000010942

vs ROBOT COUPE SNC

2019-02-20Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)317
000127936

vs QuanZhou ZhenSui Trading Co., Ltd.

2025-06-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)315
000120870

vs Chuang-Kang Machinery Technology Co., Ltd

2023-04-25REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)315
000115261

vs GUANGZHOU SUNMILE INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.

2021-08-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)315
000114503

vs F4F Polska Sp. z o.o.

2021-05-06REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)315