Invalidity · first instance · 2021-12-17
000113644
Contested design: 008088827-0001
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld; Registered Community design No 008088827-0001 is declared invalid; the holder bears costs fixed at EUR 750.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Dem Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung wird stattgegeben. 2. Das eingetragene Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster Nr. 008088827-0001 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
Reiner Förstervia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Sichelstraße 62, 44229 Dortmund, Deutschland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
BioHeatPlus GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Rheinpromenade 8, 40789 Mohnheim, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
Heizapparat
https://web.archive.org/web/20180912104553/http://bioheatplus.de/ · Internet Archive · disclosed 2018-09-12
Heizapparat
https://web.archive.org/web/20181013185959/http://bioheatplus.de:80/ · Internet Archive · disclosed 2018-10-13
Heizapparat
https://web.archive.org/web/20181113235711/http://bioheatplus.de:80/ · Internet Archive · disclosed 2018-11-13
Heizapparat
https://web.archive.org/web/20190123080653/http://bioheatplus.de/ · Internet Archive · disclosed 2019-01-23
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on an earlier heater design disclosed before the filing date, including archived versions of the holder's website.
- ›The holder argued the application was inadmissible, contested the reliability and dating of the Internet Archive evidence, invoked Article 7(2), and maintained the contested design had individual character.
- ›The Division found the invalidity application admissible, accepted DK6 to DK9 as proof that the earlier heater design was publicly disclosed from 12 September 2018, and rejected the Article 7(2) objection.
- ›Comparing the designs from the informed user's perspective, the Division held that the color and minor element differences did not change the overall impression, so the contested design lacked individual character and was invalidated.
Deciding panel
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberIvanka IVANOVA
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000132264 vs SHANDONG QIYUE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY CO.,LTD | 2026-05-26 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 8 |
| 000131884 vs Zhaoqing Mikasi Home Hardware Co., LTD | 2026-03-27 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 8 |
| 000130601 vs Zhou Canbin | 2026-01-15 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 8 |
| 000127275 vs GRZEGORZ PIĄTEK PHU "TOP SERVIS" | 2025-09-17 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 8 |
| 000128177 vs DECATHLON | 2025-08-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 8 |
| 000126775 vs Ecomsoul Pro SRL | 2025-07-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 8 |
| 000126715 | 2025-07-10 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 8 |
| 000128196 vs Rafał Sowa | 2025-07-08 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 8 |