Invalidity · first instance · 2021-05-03
000110686
Contested design: 006371126-0003
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld, Registered Community design No 006371126-0003 is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's fixed costs of EUR 750.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 006371126-0003 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Domino Polska Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością spółka komandytowavia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Rzeźnicza 4, 58-200 Dzierżoniów, Poland
Represented by
Bartosz Szczepaniak
Holder · RCD owner
Schaffner Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością Spółka Komandytowa
Poland (PL)
ul. Floriańska 37/1, 31-019 Kraków, Poland
Represented by
Marek Mikosza
Prior art cited (8)
door handle
RCD No 003241124-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-06-29
door handle
RCD No 001283816-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-19
door handle
RCD No 002405381-0077 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-08-17
door handle
RCD No 003241124-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-06-29
door handle
RCD No 005302817-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-06-18
door handle
RCD No 005302841-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-06-18
Qubik and Gustaw door handle designs
Domino catalogues; Rothkin website and catalogue; invoices
door handle design in a Chinese patent registration
CN303910749S · Chinese patent publication · disclosed 2016-11-16
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over six earlier RCDs, the Qubik and Gustaw designs, and later-filed Chinese patent material.
- ›The holder argued designer freedom for door handles was narrow, market trends mattered, and the catalog and patent materials should not be admitted as reliable evidence.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure of the six earlier RCDs through their Bulletin publications, refused to admit the Chinese patent because it was not invoked in the application, and treated catalogue notarisation as unnecessary in principle.
- ›Applying broad designer freedom for door handles, the Division found the contested design and D1 created the same overall impression despite minor differences in edges, backplate shape, and insert details.
- ›The application was upheld, the contested RCD was declared invalid for lack of individual character, and costs of EUR 750 were awarded against the holder.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila CELISOVA
- MemberElisabetta FERRARO
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000131944 vs Jinsong Liu | 2026-04-29 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 8 |
| 000128757 vs Axue Jin | 2026-03-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 8 |
| 000127246 vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG | 2026-03-05 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 8 |
| 000127279 vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG | 2026-03-05 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 8 |
| 000127243 vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG | 2026-03-05 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 8 |
| 000127245 vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG | 2026-03-05 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 8 |
| 000127244 vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG | 2026-03-05 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 8 |
| 000127241 vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG | 2026-02-27 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 8 |