Invalidity · first instance · 2022-06-15
000116927
Contested design: 008029821-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicants must bear the holders’ costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0080298210001 is rejected. 2. The applicants bear the holders’ costs, fixed at EUR 400.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Michaela Gambovávia PDF extraction
Czechia (CZ)
Trstěnice 49, Trstěnice, Czechia
Represented by
Tomáš Bejček
Holder · RCD owner
Jakub Paško
Czechia (CZ)
Divišova 2819/8, 73301 Karviná – Hranice, Czechia
Represented by
Pavel Nádvorník
Prior art cited (11)
parrot harness
French industrial design No 9854840001 · DesignView · disclosed 1999-02-05
harness
RCD No 0003635510001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2005-08-23
applicants’ parrot harness product
customer affidavits and invoices
parrot harness shown on archived website
http://www.loro-shop.cz · Internet Archive · disclosed 2016-09-28
parrot harness shown on archived website
http://www.loro-shop.cz · Internet Archive · disclosed 2016-09-28
parrot harness shown on archived website
http://www.loro-shop.cz · Internet Archive · disclosed 2019-04-07
parrot harness shown on archived website
http://www.epapousek.cz · Internet Archive · disclosed 2016-07-29
parrot harness shown on archived website
http://en.wikipedia.org · Internet Archive · disclosed 2015-06-04
internet article depicting a design
ARARAUNA.CZ article · ARARAUNA.CZ · disclosed 2016-03-23
design depicted in product test certificate
product test certificate · product test certificate · disclosed 2016-01-27
designs shown in Facebook posts by the holders
Facebook page screenshots · Facebook · disclosed 2018-09-11
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicants sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on D1 to D7 to argue the bird harness design repeated earlier strap configurations.
- ›The holders filed observations late, so the Office did not take their response into consideration.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure only for D1, D2, and web designs D4a to D4e; it rejected D3, D5, D6, D7, and unclear D4 images as insufficient evidence.
- ›Comparing the accepted prior designs with the contested design, the Division found clear configuration differences, so the design was novel, had individual character, and the application failed.
Deciding panel
- MemberElisabetta FERRARO
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
- MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000116997 vs Zechuang Zheng | 2022-06-22 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 7 |
| 000111001 vs GRANDE FINALE Gabriela Myślak | 2021-03-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 7 |
| 000106219 vs EUZIEL International GmbH | 2019-12-12 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 7 |
| 000104559 vs "NUEVA"ООD | 2019-10-25 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 7 |
| 000102579 vs JULIUS-K9 Zrt. | 2019-06-18 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 7 |
| 000131828 vs Weiming Li | 2026-04-21 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 5 |
| 000129301 vs Yu Bao | 2026-01-23 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 5 |
| 000129536 vs WENJIU YANG | 2025-10-28 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 30 | 5 |