Invalidity · first instance · 2021-07-26
000112383
Contested design: 007737143-0004
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 0077371430004 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Musto Et Bureau Srlvia PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Molise, 26/28, 40024 Osteria Grande (BO), Italien
Represented by
Francesco De Sanzuane
Holder · RCD owner
Rauch Furnace Technology GmbH
Austria (AT)
Fichtenweg 3, 4810 Gmunden, Österreich
Represented by
Prior art cited (7)
applicant website page for crucibles for magnesium alloys
https://www.dittamusto.it/prodotti/crogioli-per-leghe-di-magnesio/ · dittamusto.it
applicant website page for crucibles for zinc alloys
https://www.dittamusto.it/prodotti/crogioli-per-leghe-di-zinco · dittamusto.it
catalog images of a double-basin crucible furnace for magnesium and a furnace for zinc
2010 invoice cited for earlier marketing of crucibles
ALUMINIUM trade fair in Dusseldorf cited as prior market disclosure of crucible forms
ALUMINIUM trade fair, Dusseldorf · disclosed 2012-10-09
IMA convention in Rome cited as prior market disclosure of crucible forms
IMA Convention, Rome · disclosed 2016-05-15
unattached screenshot of third-party crucibles webpage cited in reply
https://www.pilling.de/en/crucibles.html · pilling.de
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued the contested crucible was not a protectable design, lacked novelty and individual character over long-marketed crucible forms, and was excluded because of invisibility and technical function.
- ›The holder replied that the filing and evidence were partly untranslated and unsubstantiated, no specific earlier design or proven disclosure was identified, and the contested design remained new, individual, visible, and not purely technical.
- ›The Division found the application admissible and refused oral proceedings, but held that the table, websites, catalog images, invoice, fair references, and missing screenshot did not prove disclosure of a concrete earlier design under Article 7.
- ›It further found the crucible qualified as a design, was visible in normal use, and was not shown to be exclusively functional or a must-fit feature, so the invalidity application was rejected with costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
- MemberIvanka IVANOVA
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000119103 vs DYSON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED | 2023-12-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 15 | 9 |
| 000119138 vs DYSON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED | 2023-12-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 15 | 9 |
| 000117532 vs Suzhou Dibea Electrical Technology Co., Ltd. | 2022-09-21 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 15 | 9 |
| 000112341 vs Rauch Furnace Technology GmbH | 2021-08-02 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 15 | 9 |
| 000112381 vs Rauch Furnace Technology GmbH | 2021-08-02 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 15 | 9 |
| 000112382 vs Rauch Furnace Technology GmbH | 2021-07-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 15 | 9 |
| 000124955 vs Terence A.H.F. Noppe h.o.d.n. EasySwift | 2025-09-05 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000122714 vs LEIFHEIT AG | 2024-06-21 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |