Invalidity · first instance · 2021-08-02
000112401
Contested design: 007372958-0004
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity of Registered Community design No 0073729580004 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. 0073729580004 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 (6)
Applicant's webpage for crucibles for magnesium alloys
https://www.dittamusto.it/prodotti/crogioli-per-leghe-di-magnesio/ · dittamusto.it
Applicant's 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
Display of similar crucible forms at the ALUMINIUM trade fair in Duesseldorf
ALUMINIUM trade fair, Duesseldorf · disclosed 2012-10-09
Display of similar crucible forms at the International Magnesium Association convention in Rome
IMA convention, Rome · disclosed 2016-05-15
Referenced screenshot of a German company's crucibles webpage
https://www.pilling.de/en/crucibles.html · pilling.de
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested crucible design was not a protectable design, lacked novelty and individual character, and was dictated by technical function or hidden in use.
- ›The holder said the application and evidence were inadequately translated and unsubstantial, prior disclosures were unproven, and the contested design remained new, individual, and visible in use.
- ›The Division accepted the application procedurally but found the table, websites, catalog material, invoices, and trade-fair references insufficient to prove any concrete earlier design disclosure under Article 7.
- ›It also found the crucible could be sold as a standalone product, remained visible in use, and was not shown to be exclusively technically dictated or a must-fit connection feature.
- ›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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |