DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000363486-0028

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-04-29

000113027

Contested design: 000363486-0028

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld; Registered Community design No 000363486-0028 is declared invalid; the holder must bear the applicant's costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Se estima la solicitud de declaración de nulidad. 2. Se declara nulo el dibujo o modelo comunitario registrado nº 000363486-0028. 3. Se condena al titular a que sufrague las costas del solicitante, que se fijan en 750 EUR.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Canalones Novokanal, S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Calle de Huelva, 6 Nave 5, Pol. Ind. La Carrehuela, 28343 Valdemoro (Madrid), España

Represented by

Javier Ungría López

Holder · RCD owner

Canalones Castilla S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Calle Embalse n°5, 28607 El Álamo (Madrid), España

Prior art cited (1)

International designAnexo 5

water-collection downpipe with four longitudinal grooves

DM 020 105 · OMPI · disclosed 1991-09-30

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6(1)Article 6(2)Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested design did not meet the design definition and, in any event, lacked individual character over earlier prior art including international design DM 020 105.
  • The holder requested rejection, relied on earlier Spanish court judgments, and said the product had been authorised and adapted to technical requirements requested by the applicant's company.
  • The Division held that the Article 8 technical-function argument was inadmissible because it was raised late, and that the cited WIPO international design had been validly disclosed before the priority date.
  • Given the designer's broad freedom, the minor differences in groove spacing and the welding fold did not change the overall impression on the informed user.
  • The application was upheld because the contested RCD lacked individual character under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6 of the CDR.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO

Decision files

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

Locarno classes

23.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000113026

vs CANALONES CASTILLA S.L.

2021-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)2310
000113061

vs CANALONES CASTILLA S.L.

2021-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)2310
000113025

vs CANALONES CASTILLA S.L.

2021-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)2310
000132264

vs SHANDONG QIYUE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY CO.,LTD

2026-05-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000131884

vs Zhaoqing Mikasi Home Hardware Co., LTD

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000130601

vs Zhou Canbin

2026-01-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000127275

vs GRZEGORZ PIĄTEK PHU "TOP SERVIS"

2025-09-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000128177

vs DECATHLON

2025-08-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238