Invalidity · first instance · 2021-08-02
000112341
Contested design: 007372958-0001
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity 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. 0073729580001 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 (8)
table with photos of alleged earlier crucible designs, first-marketing dates, invoice references and catalog references
applicant webpage for crucibles for magnesium alloys
https://www.dittamusto.it/prodotti/crogioli-per-leghe-di-magnesio/ · dittamusto.it
applicant webpage for crucibles for zinc alloys
https://www.dittamusto.it/prodotti/crogioli-per-leghe-di-zinco · dittamusto.it
catalog images showing a double-basin crucible furnace for magnesium and a furnace for zinc
2010 invoices cited as evidence of earlier marketing of crucibles
ALUMINIUM trade fair cited as showing the crucible forms on the market
Messe Düsseldorf, Germany · disclosed 2012-10-09
IMA Convention cited as showing the crucible forms on the market
A.ROMA Lifestyle Hotel, Rome, Italy · disclosed 2016-05-15
referenced screenshot of W. Pilling crucibles webpage
https://www.pilling.de/en/crucibles.html · pilling.de
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity because the contested crucible design allegedly was not a design, lacked novelty and individual character, and was dictated by technical function and invisibility in use.
- ›The holder argued the application and evidence were insufficiently translated and substantiated, no concrete earlier designs had been proven disclosed, and the contested design remained new, individual, and not purely technical.
- ›The Division found the filed table, webpages, catalog extracts, invoices, fair references, and website screenshot did not concretely and objectively prove disclosure of any specific earlier design under Article 7.
- ›It also held the crucible qualified as a design, was visible during normal use even if part of a furnace, and had not been shown to consist solely of technically dictated or must-fit features.
- ›The invalidity application was rejected in full and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000119138 vs DYSON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED | 2023-12-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 15 | 9 |
| 000119103 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 |
| 000112381 vs Rauch Furnace Technology GmbH | 2021-08-02 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 15 | 9 |
| 000112383 vs Rauch Furnace Technology GmbH | 2021-07-26 | — | 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 |