Invalidity · first instance · 2021-11-05
000116068
Contested design: 006378071-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld, the contested Community design is declared invalid, and the holder must bear costs fixed at EUR 750.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Dem Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung wird stattgegeben. 2. Das eingetragene Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster Nr. 006378071-0001 wird für nichtig erklärt. 3. Die Inhaberin trägt die Kosten, die auf 750 EUR festgesetzt werden.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Progress Profiles SpAvia PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via le Marze, 7, 31011 Asolo (TV), Italien
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Schlüter-Systems KG
Germany (DE)
Schmölestr. 7, 58640 Iserlohn, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (3)
Photos of the product "Schlüter-DITRA" showing the earlier decoupling mat design
facebook.com post dated 2015-01-16 · facebook.com · disclosed 2015-01-16
Catalog and price-list pages for "Schlüter-DITRA" showing the same product design
Schlüter Systems price lists valid from 2001-01-01, 2004-01-01 and 2005-01-01 · Schlüter Systems price lists · disclosed 2001-01-01
European patent said to contain the contested mat design
EP1073813B2 · European patent
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested decoupling-mat design lacked novelty and individual character because the same DITRA design had long been disclosed, and that all visible features were technically dictated.
- ›The holder filed no observations within the time limit and did not contest disclosure, individual character, or technical-function arguments.
- ›The Division accepted the earlier disclosures, especially the 16 January 2015 Facebook post, identified the informed user as a user of building materials and decoupling mats, and found no material restriction on designer freedom.
- ›Comparing the registered view with the earlier DITRA disclosure, the Division found the designs identical apart from at most tone differences, producing the same overall impression.
- ›The application was therefore upheld under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 4(1) and 6(1)(b), and the contested design was declared invalid with costs against the holder.
Deciding panel
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000129804 vs Mirosław Mytnik StudioDelta.pl | 2026-05-06 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000129781 vs SHANGHAI KENDA INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. | 2026-02-09 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000126955 vs Decora S.A. | 2026-01-29 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000129761 vs Shanghai Kenda Industrial Co.,Ltd. | 2025-11-13 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000127177 vs Hermanus Johannes Matheus Verdegaal | 2025-10-14 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000129361 vs Xiaoxia LI | 2025-10-09 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000129266 vs Taiyuan Jiuchangsheng Trading Co., Ltd. | 2025-10-07 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000124779 vs D.ELLINAS FACTORY PRODUCTS LTD | 2025-06-25 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |