Invalidity · first instance · 2021-04-21
000111021
Contested design: 001388524-0001
Outcome
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 0013885240001 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, 47100 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)
Promastretch stretch film with edge and centre reinforcements allegedly disclosed at the Rubber Plastics Industry Fair RUBPLAST EXPO 2010
Rubber Plastics Industry Fair RUBPLAST EXPO 2010, Sosnowiec, Poland · disclosed 2010-10-17
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and technical-function exclusion, relying on a reinforced stretch film allegedly disclosed at the RUBPLAST EXPO 2010 fair and on machine-related evidence.
- ›The holder argued that the contested design differed from the alleged prior design and that the submitted photographs, award materials and NO.EL letter did not prove disclosure.
- ›The Division found no convincing evidence that the contested design's essential features were solely dictated by technical function under Article 8(1) CDR.
- ›The Division also found the evidence insufficient to prove prior public disclosure under Article 7 CDR, so the novelty challenge failed and the application was rejected.
Deciding panel
- MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
- MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000131724 vs Shenzhen Shuangzhi E-commerce Co., Ltd. | 2026-04-22 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 05 | 7 |
| 000130181 vs Shenzhen Zongyuan Technology Co., Ltd | 2025-11-24 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 05 | 7 |
| 000121025 vs FOLPOL ROBERT BARCZYK, JACEK CYGAN | 2024-03-05 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 05 | 7 |
| 000110988 vs FOLPOL ROBERT BARCZYK, JACEK CYGAN | 2021-04-21 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 05 | 7 |
| 000111261 vs FOLPOL ROBERT BARCZYK, JACEK CYGAN | 2020-10-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 05 | 7 |
| 000131631 vs Shenzhen Shuangzhi E-commerce Co., Ltd. | 2026-04-21 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 05 | 5 |
| 000131630 vs Shenghui Wei | 2026-04-21 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 05 | 5 |
| 000127715 vs Meirong Huang | 2025-05-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 05 | 5 |