DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002463174-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-11-05

000114043

Contested design: 002463174-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected and the applicant must pay 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 002463174-0001 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

Loventi Belgium NVvia PDF extraction

Belgium (BE)

Industriestraat 5c, 2500 Lier, Belgium

Represented by

Fencer BV

Holder · RCD owner

H.V.D. B.V.B.A.

Belgium (BE)

Atomveldstraat 1 bus 2, 9450 Denderhoutem, Belgium

Represented by

Arnold & Siedsma

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureExhibit 1⚠ rejected as evidence

Google search results images for HVD waffle iron predating the contested design

Google search for 'hvd waffle iron' · Google

Web disclosureD1

HVD A57 waffle iron shown in a YouTube video; no basin

https://www.youtube.com · YouTube · disclosed 2010-05-23

Web disclosureD2

HVD A57 waffle iron shown in The Waffle Lab Facebook post; white plastic-like basin

The Waffle Lab Facebook account · disclosed 2012-01-31

PublicationD3

HVD waffle iron shown in the Flanders Sourcing Guide brochure; metallic-like basin

Flanders Sourcing Guide · Government of Flanders

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • Applicant claimed the contested baking-appliance part lacked novelty and individual character based on earlier HVD A57 waffle-iron disclosures online and in a brochure.
  • Holder sought suspension because of alleged Belgian court proceedings but filed no substantive observations after the Office resumed the invalidity case.
  • The Division rejected Google search screenshots as insufficient disclosure evidence but accepted the Facebook post, YouTube video and Flanders brochure as separate prior designs.
  • None of the prior designs was identical to the contested design, and each produced a different overall impression, mainly because of differences in the operational unit and basin.
  • The application was rejected in full and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in representation costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI
  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES

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

07.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129182

vs Guangzhou L-TEK Enterprise Co.,Ltd

2025-09-25Art 25(1)(b)077
000120871

vs Chuang-Kang Machinery Technology Co., Ltd

2025-01-16Art 25(1)(b)077
000122014

vs EDIESI SL

2023-09-07Art 25(1)(b)077
000118726

vs DAKA RESEARCH INC.

2023-04-27Art 25(1)(b)077
000119513

vs Weiming Li

2023-04-14Art 25(1)(b)077
000118241

vs Noi srl

2023-01-25Art 25(1)(b)077
000116574

vs Horizons Group (London) Limited

2022-11-16Art 25(1)(b)077
000118157

vs Qing Wang

2022-11-09Art 25(1)(b)077