Invalidity · first instance · 2022-04-11
000115582
Contested design: 003865518-0001
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity against Registered Community design No 003865518-0001 is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 003865518-0001 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten des Inhabers, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Wundermix GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Dirnismaning 34 D, 85748 Garching b. München, Deutschland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Holger Bauer
Germany (DE)
Nassauer Straße 14, Schweighau 56377, Deutschland
Represented by
Wieland Groth
Prior art cited (10)
Küchenutensilien; Backformen
FR701000000082182-0002 · French Intellectual Property Office register extract · disclosed 2008-07-25
Küchenutensilien; Backformen
001019277-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2008-11-05
Schüsseln
01773417-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2010-12-16
Töpfe [Geschirr]
01773417-0008 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2010-12-16
Servierschüsseln
000051065-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2003-11-11
Dichtung für einen Behälter
000051065-0007 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2003-11-11
Näpfe
000051065-0013 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2003-11-11
Deckel, Kochgeräte (Teile von), Kochapparate, -geräte und -gefäße (Teil von)
00694682-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2007-05-02
Deckel, Kochgeräte (Teile von), Kochapparate, -geräte und -gefäße (Teil von)
00694682-0007 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2007-05-02
Dampfkochtöpfe (Teil von)
002170555-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-02-19
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested steamer attachment was solely dictated by technical function, had to match exact dimensions for connection, and lacked novelty and individual character over D1 to D10.
- ›The holder replied that the contested design was new and had individual character, and that none of its features was exclusively technically dictated.
- ›The Division found the attachment still reflected design choice in its rim, proportions, vertical frame, and handle configuration, so Articles 8(1) and 8(2) did not bar protection.
- ›The cited earlier designs were disclosed but created a different overall impression; none was identical, so the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000129182 vs Guangzhou L-TEK Enterprise Co.,Ltd | 2025-09-25 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |
| 000120871 vs Chuang-Kang Machinery Technology Co., Ltd | 2025-01-16 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |
| 000122014 vs EDIESI SL | 2023-09-07 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |
| 000118726 vs DAKA RESEARCH INC. | 2023-04-27 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |
| 000119513 vs Weiming Li | 2023-04-14 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |
| 000118241 vs Noi srl | 2023-01-25 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |
| 000116574 vs Horizons Group (London) Limited | 2022-11-16 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |
| 000118157 vs Qing Wang | 2022-11-09 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 7 |