DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006371126-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-05-05

000110685

Contested design: 006371126-0002

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld and Registered Community design No 006371126-0002 is declared invalid.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 006371126-0002 is declared invalid.

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)

Registered RCDD1

door handle

RCD No 003241124-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-06-29

Registered RCD

door handle

RCD No 001283816-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-07-19

Registered RCD

door handle

RCD No 002405381-0077 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-08-17

Registered RCD

door handle

RCD No 003241124-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-06-29

Registered RCD

door handle

RCD No 005302817-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-06-18

Registered RCD

door handle

RCD No 005302841-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-06-18

Other

Qubik and Gustaw door-handle designs disclosed in the applicant's catalogues, on Rothkin's website and catalogue, and by invoices

Domino catalogues; Rothkin website and catalogue; invoices

Patent⚠ rejected as evidence

Chinese design patent for a door handle

CN303910749S · Chinese patent publication · disclosed 2016-11-16

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested door-handle design lacked novelty and individual character in light of earlier RCDs and further catalogue, website and invoice disclosures.
  • The holder argued that designer freedom for door handles was narrow, market trends mattered, and the catalogue evidence was unreliable without notarial authentication.
  • The Invalidity Division accepted disclosure of the earlier published RCDs, refused the late Chinese patent, and found broad designer freedom for the visible shape of door handles.
  • Comparing the contested design with D1, the Division found only marginal differences and the same overall impression, so it invalidated the RCD and awarded costs against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN

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

08.06

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131944

vs Jinsong Liu

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)088
000128757

vs Axue Jin

2026-03-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)088
000127246

vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG

2026-03-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)088
000127279

vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG

2026-03-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)088
000127243

vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG

2026-03-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)088
000127245

vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG

2026-03-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)088
000127244

vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG

2026-03-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)088
000127241

vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG

2026-02-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)088