DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005835469-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-11-05

000112301

Contested design: 005835469-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant’s fixed costs of EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 005835469-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

SPC «Aeromeh»via PDF extraction

UA

Str. International, 37, Kreminna 92900, Ukraine

Holder · RCD owner

ASM Technology SP. Z O.O.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Koralowa 17/37, 20-583 Lublin, Poland

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosureD1

CAD/SAD-30 aerodynamic separator model

www.iuriagui.ro · Wayback Machine Internet Archive · disclosed 2018-07-24

National designD2

Ukrainian industrial design for a separator

UA 25317 · Register of Patents of Ukraine for Industrial Designs · disclosed 2013-08-27

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over the earlier CAD/SAD separator models, especially D1, and Ukrainian design UA 25317.
  • The holder argued the designs were not identical, citing different nozzles, lever position, doors, service module, and technically dictated separator features.
  • The Division found D1 had been disclosed before filing and that the designer’s freedom was not substantially limited for separator frames, casing, and feed-bin shapes.
  • Despite visible differences, the common configuration and placement of the main elements created the same overall impression, so the RCD lacked individual character and was invalidated.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENE

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

15.0315.99

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000132204

vs Baofeng LIU

2026-05-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)158
000132185

vs Baofeng LIU

2026-05-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)158
000132064

vs Han Sheng

2026-05-06REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)158
000131827

vs linbo GAO

2026-04-28REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)158
000131826

vs linbo GAO

2026-04-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)158
000131787

vs linbo GAO

2026-04-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)158
000131088

vs ZhiAo Zhou

2026-03-18REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)158
000129841

vs Suzhou Kingbow Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd

2026-01-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)158