Invalidity · first instance · 2021-09-16
000105099
Contested design: 000096102-0005
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld and the contested Registered Community design is declared invalid.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0000961020005 is declared invalid.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
trilatec GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Im Weiherfeld 7/9, 65462 Ginsheim-Gustavsburg, Germany
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Eltete Tpm Oyvia PDF extraction
Finland (FI)
Varastokuja 5, 07900 Loviisa, Finland
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
patent application for the product incorporating the contested design
Finnish patent application No 20012093 · Finland · disclosed 2003-04-04
patent application for the product incorporating the contested design
Finnish patent application No 20021490 · Finland · disclosed 2004-02-20
pallet
WO-94/02366 · WIPO · disclosed 1994-02-03
holder's 'PallRun' pallet-foot product shown on the holder's website via Wayback Machine captures
www.eltete.com · Wayback Machine / www.eltete.com · disclosed 2002-06-25
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the pallet-foot design was entirely dictated by technical function and also lacked novelty and individual character over earlier patent disclosures and website disclosures.
- ›The holder sought a stay, challenged parts of the evidence, denied the product was limited to pallet feet, and maintained that the contested design differed from the cited prior designs.
- ›The Invalidity Division refused a stay, identified the product as a pallet foot for loading pallets, and assessed the design's visible features under Article 8(1) CDR.
- ›It found each visible feature solely functional, with no demonstrated aesthetic choice affecting the overall appearance, so the other invalidity grounds did not need examination.
- ›The invalidity application was upheld in full, the RCD was declared invalid, and the holder was ordered to bear EUR 750 in costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila CELISOVA
- MemberElisabetta FERRARO
- MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000131325 vs HaoJun Zhu | 2026-05-13 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000131965 vs Jiaxing Xiaotian Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. | 2026-05-07 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000130985 vs Suzhou Hongmao Import & Export Trade Co.,Ltd | 2026-03-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000130944 vs Shenzhen Tajinxuan Trading Co.,Ltd. | 2026-02-13 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000130968 vs Shenzhen Zhimei Chuangke E-commerce Co., Ltd. | 2026-02-05 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000129539 vs MOHAMAR JAMOU | 2026-01-14 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000130088 vs Mindful eCom OÜ | 2025-12-15 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000129281 vs VERONIKI ECOGRUP SRL | 2025-11-04 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |