DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002081471-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-06-29

000110881

Contested design: 002081471-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0020814710002 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Aj Home SARLvia PDF extraction

France (FR)

555 rue Saint Pierre, 13012 Marseille, France

Represented by

Legabrand

Holder · RCD owner

Generale Maatschappij Voor Plastiek Internationaal NVvia PDF extraction

Belgium (BE)

Industriezone E3, Karrewegstraat 150152154, 9800 Deinze, Belgium

Prior art cited (2)

National designD1

earlier French design for a fence fastener/support component

French design No 585310001 · French Designs Bulletin · disclosed 1958-05-06

National designD2

earlier French design for a fence fastener/support component

French design No 0823610008 · French Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2008-07-25

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(a)Article 25(1)(b)Article 3(a)Article 4(1)Article 4(2)Article 8(1)Article 8(2)Article 6(1)(b)Article 5(1)(b)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued the RCD was not a design as filed, was purely functional or an interconnection feature, was invisible in normal use as part of a complex product, and lacked novelty and individual character over D1 and D2.
  • The holder replied that the product indication did not limit protection, the component remained visible, aesthetic choices influenced the shape, and D1 and D2 created a different overall impression.
  • The Division found the representation sufficiently clear, Article 4(2) did not exclude protection, and the applicant failed to prove that all relevant features were solely technically dictated or had to be reproduced exactly.
  • The Division held that D1 and D2 were properly disclosed but produced a different overall impression, so the contested RCD had individual character and novelty.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's fixed representation costs of EUR 400.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI

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

08.08

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000110882

vs GENERALE MAATSCHAPPIJ VOOR PLASTIEK INTERNATIONAAL NV

2021-06-29Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)089
000110883

vs GENERALE MAATSCHAPPIJ VOOR PLASTIEK INTERNATIONAAL NV

2021-06-29Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)089
000011037

vs GIGALI Ltd.

2018-07-10Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)089
000011033

vs GIGALI Ltd.

2018-07-10Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)089
000126578

vs iFixit GmbH

2025-08-18REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)087
000122554

vs CZECHPOL servis s.r.o.

2024-06-18Art 25(1)(b)087
000122442

vs CZECHPOL servis s.r.o.

2024-06-18Art 25(1)(b)087
000122334

vs PRETENSADOS DURÁN, S. L.

2024-06-06Art 25(1)(b)087