Invalidity · first instance · 2021-08-03
000112421
Contested design: 007372958-0005
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. 0073729580005 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 (1)
Earlier crucible shapes allegedly sold and shown by the applicant for magnesium and zinc alloy melting furnaces.
Applicant's table, catalog images, invoices from 2010, trade fairs in 2012 and 2016, and applicant websites
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity because the contested crucible allegedly was not a design, lacked novelty and individual character, was invisible in normal use, and was dictated by technical function.
- ›The holder argued the application and evidence were deficient, no concrete earlier designs or valid disclosure had been proved, and the contested design remained new, individual, and visible in use.
- ›The Division accepted the filing despite incomplete translations, refused an oral hearing, and found the applicant's table, websites, invoices, fairs, and catalog material insufficient to prove prior disclosure under Article 7.
- ›The Division also found the crucible could be visible in normal use and that the applicant had not proved the design's essential features were solely technically dictated or must-fit features; 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 |