Invalidity · first instance · 2021-06-11
000114202
Contested design: 002439927-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD 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 0024399270001 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
Van Huet Glastransport Polska spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnościąvia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Nadrzeczna 1, 24262 Kolonia-Poczesna, Poland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Adam Pasternak
Poland (PL)
ul. Egejska 11/76, 02764 Warszawa, Poland
Represented by
Prior art cited (8)
glass loading frame technical drawing with specifications
Saint Gobain Glass Logistic fax · disclosed 2003-01-22
L-frame rack shown in a CE compliance document
Ingenieria Navarra Mechanica S.L. document of compliance with CE norms for Guardian · disclosed 2009-07-21
L-frame rack shown in a CE compliance document
Ingenieria Navarra Mechanica S.L. document of compliance with CE norms for Guardian · disclosed 2009-07-21
rack used for transport of glass shown in a photograph
photograph labelled “date mise en service: octobre 2010”
rack shown in archived website printout
www.galmal.com.pl · Internet Archive capture of www.galmal.com.pl · disclosed 2011-04-23
rack shown in archived website printout
www.galmal.com.pl · Internet Archive capture of www.galmal.com.pl · disclosed 2011-04-23
rack shown in stills from the video “In Loader”
https://www.youtube.com · YouTube video “In Loader” · disclosed 2013-06-11
rack shown in stills from videos made by sevenglass
https://www.youtube.com · YouTube videos by sevenglass · disclosed 2012-07-31
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for a transport rack design, arguing the design lacked novelty and individual character and that all features were solely dictated by technical function.
- ›The holder missed the response deadline; his late observations and unreadable data carrier were disregarded, so the application was effectively undefended on the merits.
- ›The Division found the rack’s frame, base, supports, and A-profile were shaped only by transport, stability, protection, and weight-saving requirements, not visual design choices.
- ›The application was upheld under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 8(1) CDR, the RCD was declared invalid, and costs were awarded against the holder.
Deciding panel
- MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000131325 vs HaoJun Zhu | 2026-05-13 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000131965 vs Jiaxing Xiaotian Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. | 2026-05-07 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000130985 vs Suzhou Hongmao Import & Export Trade Co.,Ltd | 2026-03-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000130944 vs Shenzhen Tajinxuan Trading Co.,Ltd. | 2026-02-13 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000130968 vs Shenzhen Zhimei Chuangke E-commerce Co., Ltd. | 2026-02-05 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000129539 vs MOHAMAR JAMOU | 2026-01-14 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000130088 vs Mindful eCom OÜ | 2025-12-15 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000129281 vs VERONIKI ECOGRUP SRL | 2025-11-04 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |