Invalidity · first instance · 2021-06-29
000110882
Contested design: 002081471-0010
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity against registered Community design No 002081471 is rejected, and the applicant is ordered to pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
1.Se - desestima la solicitud de declaración de nulidad del modelo comunitario registrado n.º 002081471. 2.Se condena al solicitante a que sufrague las costas del titular, fijadas en 400 EUR.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
AJ Home SARLvia PDF extraction
France (FR)
555 rue Saint Pierre, 13012 Marseille, Francia
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Generale Maatschappij Voor Plastiek Internationaal NVvia PDF extraction
Belgium (BE)
Industriezone E3, Karrewegstraat 150-152-154, 9800 Deinze, Bélgica
Represented by
Prior art cited (5)
Holder catalog images explaining the fence kit and the contested design component
holder catalog
YouTube video showing assembly of the fence kit and the function of the contested product
https://youtu.be/ebcpu-OpmPU · YouTube
Extract from European patent application including the contested design
EP2924193A1 · European patent application
French prior design
953627-0001 · French Designs Bulletin · disclosed 1995-09-29
Canadian patent application for "Safety Procht for Fence"
CA2182999 · Canada · disclosed 1998-02-10
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued the contested design was not a valid design, was dictated by technical function, and lacked novelty and individual character over earlier disclosures including D1 and D2.
- ›The holder replied that the product indication and views were acceptable, aesthetic choices influenced the shape, alternative forms existed, and the cited earlier designs produced a different overall impression.
- ›The Division accepted D1 and D2 as disclosed prior art, but found untranslated catalog and patent materials insufficient for parts of the technical-function case; only the open bottom was exclusively functional.
- ›Because other features were not solely technical and the contested design remained new and individually distinctive over D1 and D2, the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
- MemberLudmila CELISOVA
- MemberElisabetta FERRARO
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000110881 vs GENERALE MAATSCHAPPIJ VOOR PLASTIEK INTERNATIONAAL NV | 2021-06-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 08 | 9 |
| 000110883 vs GENERALE MAATSCHAPPIJ VOOR PLASTIEK INTERNATIONAAL NV | 2021-06-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 08 | 9 |
| 000011037 vs GIGALI Ltd. | 2018-07-10 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 08 | 9 |
| 000011033 vs GIGALI Ltd. | 2018-07-10 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 08 | 9 |
| 000126578 vs iFixit GmbH | 2025-08-18 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 08 | 7 |
| 000122554 vs CZECHPOL servis s.r.o. | 2024-06-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 7 |
| 000122442 vs CZECHPOL servis s.r.o. | 2024-06-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 7 |
| 000122334 vs PRETENSADOS DURÁN, S. L. | 2024-06-06 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 7 |