Invalidity · first instance · 2021-08-02
000112361
Contested design: 007372958-0002
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. 0073729580002 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 (5)
Table of alleged earlier crucible designs highlighted in yellow, with first-marketing dates and invoice/catalog references
Applicant table
Applicant website page for magnesium-alloy crucibles
https://www.dittamusto.it/prodotti/crogioli-per-leghe-di-magnesio/ · dittamusto.it
Applicant website page for zinc-alloy crucibles
https://www.dittamusto.it/prodotti/crogioli-per-leghe-di-zinco · dittamusto.it
Catalog page images showing a double-basin melting furnace for magnesium and a furnace for zinc
Applicant catalog
2016 invoice submitted as evidence of earlier marketing of crucibles
Invoice
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant argued the contested crucible was not a valid design, lacked novelty and individual character over earlier market disclosures, and was excluded because its appearance was technical or invisible in use.
- ›Holder replied that the application and exhibits were inadequately translated and unsubstantiated, no earlier disclosure was proven, and the contested RCD was new, individual, visible, and not solely functional.
- ›The Division accepted the filing as admissible but found the table, websites, catalog images, invoice, trade-fair references, and missing screenshot insufficient to prove disclosure of any concrete earlier design under Article 7.
- ›The Division also found the crucible visible in normal use and not shown to be solely technically dictated or a must-fit feature, so every invalidity ground failed and the application was rejected.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| 000122955 vs Jun Yu | 2024-02-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000120382 vs Jan Ładny | 2024-01-09 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000119103 vs DYSON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED | 2023-12-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000119138 vs DYSON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED | 2023-12-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000116628 vs DCX POLSKA Sp. z o.o. | 2023-01-13 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000117532 vs Suzhou Dibea Electrical Technology Co., Ltd. | 2022-09-21 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |