DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002081471-0005

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-06-29

000110883

Contested design: 002081471-0005

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

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(fr)

La demande en nullité du dessin ou modèle communautaire enregistré no 002081471-0005 est rejetée. Le demandeur supporte les frais exposés par le titulaire, fixés à 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, France

Represented by

LEGABRAND

Holder · RCD owner

Generale Orange Voor Plastiek Internationaal NVvia PDF extraction

Belgium (BE)

Industriezone E3, Karrewegstraat 150-152-154, 9800 Deinze, Belgique

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosure

video showing assembly of the fence kit and the product corresponding to the contested design

https://youtu.be/ebcpu-OpmPU · YouTube

Prior useAnnexes 2-5

similar kits on the market allegedly having the same shape and dimensions

PatentAnnex 6

European patent application concerning a fence kit incorporating the contested product

EP 2 924 193 A1 · disclosed 2015-09-30

Registered RCDAnnex 7

earlier registered Community design cited against individual character

RCD No 001148464-0001 · DesignView / Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2009-08-14

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(a)Article 25(1)(b)Article 3(a)Article 4(1)Article 8(1)Article 8(2)Article 7Article 6(1)Article 5(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested RCD was not a design, was dictated by technical function and interconnection constraints, and lacked individual character over earlier disclosures including RCD No 001148464-0001.
  • The holder disputed admissibility objections, argued that the product indication and views were sufficient, denied that the appearance was purely functional, and maintained that the earlier design created a different overall impression.
  • The Invalidity Division held that the product indication did not invalidate the registration, the applicant had not proved that all visible features were exclusively dictated by technical or interconnection requirements, and the evidence established disclosure of the earlier RCD.
  • Comparing the designs, the Division found material visual differences, especially internal elements and grooves in the contested design, so the contested RCD had individual character and novelty and the application was rejected.

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
000110881

vs GENERALE MAATSCHAPPIJ VOOR PLASTIEK INTERNATIONAAL NV

2021-06-29Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)089
000110882

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