DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002732610-0006

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-05-11

000117127

Contested design: 002732610-0006

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

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

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 0027326100006 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Бовал 7 ООДvia PDF extraction

Bulgaria (BG)

ж.к Зона Б-18, бл.6, вх.1, ет.12, ап.49, 1309 София, Bulgaria

Holder · RCD owner

Лъкилокс Адvia PDF extraction

Bulgaria (BG)

Бул. Илиянци № 123, 1220 София, Bulgaria

Represented by

Milena Lyubenova Georgieva-Tabakova

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosure

Unlocking instruments, including an L-shaped lock-pick device with two thin equal extensions.

Facebook account of Mr Vladimir Kirev · Facebook · disclosed 2014-05-23

Web disclosure

Unlocking instruments showing the same lock-pick devices relied on against the contested design.

Facebook account 'Turbodecoder Turbodecoder' · Facebook · disclosed 2014-01-20

Web disclosure

Video stills showing a set of unlocking instruments.

YouTube video by Marco Amendola · YouTube · disclosed 2013-11-04

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 7(2)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested lock-pick design lacked novelty because identical unlocking instruments had been publicly disclosed online before the filing date.
  • The holder filed no observations and did not rebut the alleged disclosures or the claimed identity of the compared designs.
  • The Division accepted the Facebook disclosures as prior public disclosures, found the compared L-shaped instruments identical apart from immaterial paint and engraving differences, and treated the evidence as predating filing and the grace period.
  • The application was upheld because the contested design was not new under Article 5(1)(b), so the design was declared invalid and costs were awarded against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
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

08.07

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