DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002951335-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-04-25

000115946

Contested design: 002951335-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested registered Community design is declared invalid, and the holder must pay EUR 750 in costs.

Show verbatim operative text(fr)

1. La demande en nullité est accueillie. 2. Le dessin ou modèle communautaire enregistré nº 002951335-0001 est déclaré nul. 3. La titulaire supporte les frais exposés par le demandeur, fixés à 750 EUR.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Paul Sitges Alonsovia PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Hostafrancs de Sió, 26-1º-1ª, 08014 Barcelona, Espagne

Represented by

VICAMARK, S.L.

Pilar López Moreno

Holder · RCD owner

CLOFORvia PDF extraction

France (FR)

Les Forges, BP 9, 38140 Renage, France

Prior art cited (1)

Prior use

GIGA fence post

POTEAU GIGA / refs. 24025033 and 24013032 · Clotex Industries / Gantois Clôtures / Girardot Industrie · disclosed 2014-07-11

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty, arguing that the contested fence post design had already been disclosed through the GIGA product range, technical sheet, catalogue, and pre-filing sales invoices.
  • The holder challenged admissibility and res judicata, and argued the evidence was undated, insufficient, and did not prove that the specific claimed post appearance had been disclosed before filing.
  • The Invalidity Division rejected the admissibility objections and accepted the later-filed supporting evidence because it supplemented the same earlier GIGA product disclosure already identified in the application.
  • On the merits, the Division found the catalogue, technical sheet, invoice, and order acknowledgment jointly proved pre-filing disclosure of the same GIGA post and that the prior design was identical in form to the contested RCD.
  • The application was upheld in full, the RCD was declared invalid, and costs were awarded against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichelle Marie DELLACHERIE
  • MemberJessica N.LEWIS
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA

Decision files

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

Locarno classes

08.08

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131944

vs Jinsong Liu

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)088
000128757

vs Axue Jin

2026-03-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)088
000127246

vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG

2026-03-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)088
000127279

vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG

2026-03-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)088
000127243

vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG

2026-03-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)088
000127245

vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG

2026-03-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)088
000127244

vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG

2026-03-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)088
000127241

vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG

2026-02-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)088