DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001470041-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-04-21

000110988

Contested design: 001470041-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected and the applicant must bear the holder’s costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0014700410001 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Andrzej Kubickivia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul.Matejki 15,18, 47-100 Strzelce Opolskie, Poland

Holder · RCD owner

Folpol Robert Barzyk, Jacek Cyganvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Mikołaja Reja 6, 05532 Wólka Załęska, Poland

Prior art cited (1)

Prior use⚠ rejected as evidence

Promastretch stretch film with edge reinforcements shown at the RUBPLAST EXPO 2010 fair

Rubber Plastics Industry Fair RUBPLAST EXPO 2010, Sosnowiec, Poland · disclosed 2010-10-17

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and technical-function exclusion, relying on earlier Promastretch films allegedly shown at RUBPLAST EXPO 2010 and machine-related evidence.
  • The holder argued the evidence did not prove the earlier film's appearance or disclosure and maintained the contested design met the requirements for protection.
  • The Division found the applicant had not proved the contested film's essential features were solely dictated by technical function under Article 8(1).
  • The Division also found the fair, competition, award, photographs, and untranslated NO.EL letter insufficient to prove prior disclosure under Article 7, so novelty was not examined further.
  • The application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant, with no fixed representation amount stated.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • 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

05.06

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131724

vs Shenzhen Shuangzhi E-commerce Co., Ltd.

2026-04-22Art 25(1)(b)057
000130181

vs Shenzhen Zongyuan Technology Co., Ltd

2025-11-24Art 25(1)(b)057
000121025

vs FOLPOL ROBERT BARCZYK, JACEK CYGAN

2024-03-05Art 25(1)(b)057
000111021

vs FOLPOL ROBERT BARCZYK, JACEK CYGAN

2021-04-21Art 25(1)(b)057
000111261

vs FOLPOL ROBERT BARCZYK, JACEK CYGAN

2020-10-26Art 25(1)(b)057
000131631

vs Shenzhen Shuangzhi E-commerce Co., Ltd.

2026-04-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)055
000131630

vs Shenghui Wei

2026-04-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)055
000127715

vs Meirong Huang

2025-05-23Art 25(1)(b)055