DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003593011-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-10-21

000114484

Contested design: 003593011-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0035930110001 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

JANO sp. z o.o. S.K.A.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Siennieńska 252, 27400 Ostrowiec Świętokrzyski, Poland

Holder · RCD owner

CHUDĚJ, s.r.o.

Czechia (CZ)

Hutisko 310, 756 62 Hutisko-Solanec, Czech Republic

Represented by

Pavel Nádvorník

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Leroy Merlin product page for a linear floor drain "Odpływ liniowy L600 Z RUSZTEM SATURN EQUATION" relied on as earlier design evidence

Leroy Merlin website / Google search results · disclosed 2013-05-09

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(a)Article 3(a)Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued the registered representation was not unitary and showed multiple products, so the design failed Article 3(a) and Article 25(1)(a) CDR.
  • It also alleged lack of novelty and individual character based on an earlier Leroy Merlin linear floor drain disclosed online before the filing date.
  • The holder responded that the contested design depicted one disassemblable linear gutter shown assembled, disassembled and in magnified detail, and challenged the prior-art evidence as insufficient.
  • The Division found the views consistently represented a single product and that the internet evidence did not prove an earlier public disclosure under Article 7 CDR.
  • The invalidity application was rejected in full, and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

23.01

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000125335

vs Digikor Oy

2025-02-11Art 25(1)(b)237
000121854

vs Zhenhua Sun

2024-02-26Art 25(1)(b)237
000120318

vs BIODOM EUROPE S.R.L.

2023-10-10Art 25(1)(b)237
000120199

vs William Huang

2023-05-30Art 25(1)(b)237
000116628

vs DCX POLSKA Sp. z o.o.

2023-01-13Art 25(1)(b)237
000118242

vs TAIZHOU WEIYE REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT CO.,LTD

2022-11-03Art 25(1)(b)237
000114601

vs fire friends GmbH & Co. KG

2022-03-23Art 25(1)(b)237
000114903

vs CERAMICA CIELO S.p.A.

2022-03-18Art 25(1)(b)237