DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008088827-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-12-20

000113681

Contested design: 008088827-0002

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, Community design No 008088827-0002 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. 008088827-0002 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

Holder · RCD owner

BioHeatPlus GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Rheinpromenade 8, 40789 Mohnheim, Deutschland

Prior art cited (1)

PublicationAnlage DK5/DK5a

heating apparatus

Artikel "BioheatPlus GmbH erfindet Weltneuheit für CO2-freies Heizen", Südwestfälische Wirtschaft, Seite 57 · Südwestfälische Wirtschaft / Südwestfälische Industrie- und Handelskammer zu Hagen

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 7(2)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued the contested heater design lacked novelty and individual character over an earlier heater disclosed publicly before the filing date, including in a May 2018 trade magazine article.
  • The holder challenged admissibility, sought an oral hearing and suspension, disputed public disclosure, invoked the Article 7(2) grace period, and argued the contested design created a different visual impression.
  • The Division rejected the admissibility, hearing, and suspension objections, accepted the May 2018 magazine evidence as a qualifying prior disclosure, and found Article 7(2) inapplicable because the disclosure was more than twelve months before filing.
  • Comparing the earlier heater with the contested design, the Division found only minor colour and surface differences and concluded the contested design produced no different overall impression on the informed user.
  • The invalidity application was upheld in full, the contested design was declared invalid for lack of individual character, and costs were awarded against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

23.03

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