DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006277935-0006

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-06-22

000112641

Contested design: 006277935-0006

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant is ordered to pay the holder’s costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Se deniega la solicitud de declaración de nulidad del dibujo o modelo comunitario registrado nº 0062779350006. 2. Se condena a la solicitante a que sufrague las costas de la titular, fijadas en 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Colom Bakery Equipment, S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Avenida Enrique Gimeno, 100, 12006 Castellón, España

Represented by

Ana Otero Iglesias

Holder · RCD owner

Cibernética para la panificación S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Camino Els Lladres, 4 y 6, 12550 Almassora (Castellón), España

Represented by

Arcade & Asociados

Prior art cited (1)

PublicationD1

Earlier bread-making machine / static proofing chamber model 98 reproduced in Annex 7 and corroborated by Annexes 8, 9 and 19.

Modelo 98 · Revista "entre panes y pastas"; YouTube / CIBERPAN

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)Article 7

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued the contested RCD lacked novelty and individual character because similar model 98 bread-making machinery had been disclosed and marketed for years before filing.
  • The holder maintained the design was new and individually distinctive, disputed the probative value and lawfulness of several emails and witness statements, and said the cited machines differed from the contested design.
  • The Division found most annexes insufficient or weak on disclosure, but accepted one earlier design, D1, as disclosed through Annex 7 together with Annexes 8, 9 and 19.
  • Comparing D1 with the contested RCD, the Division held the differences were not insignificant and produced a different overall impression, so novelty and individual character were preserved.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to bear the holder’s costs of EUR 400.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA
  • MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES

Decision files

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

Locarno classes

31.00

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000128976

vs Dongguan Keewey Electrical Technology Co., Ltd.

2025-08-04Art 25(1)(b)317
000107860

vs CIBERNÉTICA PARA LA PANIFICACIÓN, S.L.

2020-11-04Art 25(1)(b)317
000102139

vs Cong Qiang LU

2019-03-29Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)317
000010942

vs ROBOT COUPE SNC

2019-02-20Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)317
000127936

vs QuanZhou ZhenSui Trading Co., Ltd.

2025-06-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)315
000120870

vs Chuang-Kang Machinery Technology Co., Ltd

2023-04-25REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)315
000115261

vs GUANGZHOU SUNMILE INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.

2021-08-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)315
000114503

vs F4F Polska Sp. z o.o.

2021-05-06REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)315