DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006402582-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-11-30

000110063

Contested design: 006402582-0002

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0064025820002 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 (1)

Prior use

double plastic clamping profiles for air filters

PF1B2 and PF1C2 · Applicant's 2015 PDF catalogue, 2017 invoices, and ASMP webpage archived by the Wayback Machine · disclosed 2016-11-01

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that its PF1B2 and PF1C2 plastic clamping profiles had been publicly marketed and shown online before the filing date, so the contested air-filter profile lacked novelty and individual character.
  • The holder replied that the application really relied on Article 25(1)(d) CDR, that disclosure was unproven, and that differences in colour, shoulders and other details gave the contested design a different overall impression.
  • The Division treated the case as based on Article 25(1)(b) CDR, accepted the catalogue, invoices and Wayback Machine evidence as proving prior disclosure, and found the informed user to be familiar with ventilation and filter profiles.
  • It found at least average designer freedom and held that the common profile shape, hooked connecting elements and overall configuration outweighed the minor colour, gap and notch differences.
  • The application was upheld because the contested design produced no different overall impression from the prior PF1B2/PF1C2 profile and therefore lacked individual character.

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