DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006385068-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-11-30

000110062

Contested design: 006385068-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must bear EUR 750 in costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0063850680001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Profplastvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Stary Węgrzynów 39, 28350 Słupia Jedrzejowska, Poland

Represented by

Anna Maja Sokołowska-Ławniczak

Holder · RCD owner

Nuitech LTDvia PDF extraction

United Kingdom (GB)

C220d Trident Business Centre 89, Bickersteth Road, London, City of London SW17 9SH, United Kingdom

Prior art cited (3)

Prior useAnnexes 7 and 8

sales of plastic clamping profiles PF1B2 and PF1C2 for air filters

Invoice FU/2017/000265 · invoice and delivery confirmation to Kluge Luftfilter GmbH · disclosed 2017-12-07

CatalogAnnexes 12 and 13

downloadable PDF catalogue showing a pocket filter in a plastic frame with clamping profiles PF1B2 and PF1C2

applicant website

Web disclosureAnnexes 14 and 15

archived ASMP webpage depicting PF1B2 and PF1C2 products and referring to the applicant

Wayback Machine / ASMP website · disclosed 2016-11-01

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5(1)(b)Article 5(2)Article 7

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity under Article 25(1)(b) CDR, arguing its PF1B2 and PF1C2 air-filter profiles had been disclosed before the contested design was filed.
  • Holder argued the application effectively relied on Article 25(1)(d), the designs differed in visible shape and colour, and the disclosure evidence was insufficient.
  • The Division held the application was clearly based on Article 25(1)(b) and accepted the catalogue, invoices and archived webpage as solid evidence of prior disclosure.
  • After comparing the registered drawings with the earlier profiles, the Division found only immaterial differences, held the designs identical under Article 5(2), and declared the RCD invalid.

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

23.04

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000132264

vs SHANDONG QIYUE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY CO.,LTD

2026-05-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000131884

vs Zhaoqing Mikasi Home Hardware Co., LTD

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000130601

vs Zhou Canbin

2026-01-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000127275

vs GRZEGORZ PIĄTEK PHU "TOP SERVIS"

2025-09-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000128177

vs DECATHLON

2025-08-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000126775

vs Ecomsoul Pro SRL

2025-07-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
0001267152025-07-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000128196

vs Rafał Sowa

2025-07-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238