DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007373626-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-07-02

000114222

Contested design: 007373626-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

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 0073736260001 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

Emanuel José Marques Fertuzinhosvia PDF extraction

Portugal (PT)

Rua Sub-Devesa n.º 851, 4805334 Ponte, Guimarães, Portugal

Represented by

Joana Jorge Cerqueira

Holder · RCD owner

Francisco do Carmo Silva Mota

Portugal (PT)

Lugar do Largatal - Edifício do Montinho, 33, 2º dto., Caldas das Taipas, 4800370 Guimarães, Portugal

Represented by

Vera Alves

Prior art cited (12)

Web disclosureD1

Facebook post by Cristema showing a hatchet

https://www.facebook.com/Cristema/photos/756302254432785 · Facebook · disclosed 2014-08-01

Web disclosureAnnex 1.B

Facebook post by Roxa1908 showing a hatchet

https://www.facebook.com/roxa1908/photos/571025726576291/ · Facebook · disclosed 2018-01-13

Web disclosureAnnex 1.C

Facebook post by a third party showing hatchets

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10215862294409104&set=a.10210624113577857&type=3&theatre · Facebook · disclosed 2018-02-06

Web disclosureAnnex 1.D

Facebook post by Jose de Freitas & Freitas LDA showing a hatchet

https://www.facebook.com/JFFLDA/photos/a.1768188966727729/2352251778321442/?type=3&theater · Facebook · disclosed 2019-06-10

Web disclosureAnnex 2

YouTube video from Tescoma Portugal showing a hatchet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGNM-0CSVuc · YouTube · disclosed 2017-12-05

Prior useAnnexes 3A to 3K

Invoices and declarations concerning sales of hatchets from 2014 to 2019

Annexes 3A to 3K · Commercial invoices and declarations

CatalogAnnex 4

Catalogue extract showing three hatchets

Ménage Silnox Catalog · Ménage Silnox Catalog

Web disclosureAnnexes 5.A to 5.D

Online images of hatchets published since 2016

http://www.canstockphoto.com.br · canstockphoto.com.br

Web disclosureAnnex 5.E

Online image of a hatchet published since 2016

http://www.depositphotos.com · depositphotos.com

PublicationAnnex 6

Pocket calendar with hatchets on the front

Old Pocket Calendar (1987) · Fábrica de Cutelarias AFTER – António Marques de Castro & Irmãos, Lda

Web disclosureAnnex 7

Customer review page for a Tescoma hatchet published before 14/07/2019

https://kuchnianawidelcu.pl/product-pol-1475-Tluczek-ubijak-do-miesa-ztasakiem-TESCOMA-PRESIDENT.html · kuchnianawidelcu.pl

CatalogAnnexes 8.A to 8.G

Catalogue images of hatchets from different catalogues

Annexes 8.A to 8.G · Various catalogues

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 6(1)Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued the contested hatchet design lacked novelty and individual character because similar hatchets had been publicly disclosed and sold well before the December 2019 filing date.
  • The holder argued the evidence was deficient or manipulated, invoked the Article 7 grace period for one Facebook post, and said the RCD had been independently created.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of at least the Facebook disclosures in Annexes 1.A and 1.B and treated social-media posts as capable of proving prior public availability.
  • Comparing D1 with the registered design, the Division found the differences marginal, the overall impression the same for the informed user, and the RCD invalid for lack of individual character.

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

08.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131944

vs Jinsong Liu

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)088
000128757

vs Axue Jin

2026-03-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)088
000127246

vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG

2026-03-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)088
000127279

vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG

2026-03-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)088
000127243

vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG

2026-03-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)088
000127245

vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG

2026-03-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)088
000127244

vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG

2026-03-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)088
000127241

vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG

2026-02-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)088