DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005319621-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-08-16

000115666

Contested design: 005319621-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected and the applicant must pay the holder’s costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 005319621-0002 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Ergosafe Aktiebolagvia PDF extraction

Sweden (SE)

Reparatörgatan 1, 302 62 Halmstad, Sweden

Holder · RCD owner

Aluminco Α.Ε. Ανωνυμοσ Εταιρεια Αλουμινιου Και Συναφων Μεταλλωνvia PDF extraction

GR

Θέση Μεγάλη Ράχη, 32011 Οινόφυτα Βοιωτίας, Greece

Prior art cited (3)

Registered RCDD1

building elements / adjustable windbreak design

Community design registration No 002416248-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-03-05

Registered RCDD2

building elements

Community design registration No 002416248-0003 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-03-05

Registered RCDD3

building elements

Community design registration No 002416248-0004 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-03-05

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over earlier Community designs, chiefly RCD No 002416248-0002.
  • The holder argued the application was inadmissible for insufficient reasoning and, in any event, that the contested design created a different overall impression.
  • The Division accepted D1 as disclosed prior art, identified a not severely limited design freedom, and compared the designs from the informed user’s perspective.
  • It found the contested design’s opaque panels, hidden posts, sill-like tops, feet, and more robust appearance sufficient to preserve novelty and individual character, so the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ

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

25.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000128596

vs Griptel AB

2025-07-17Art 25(1)(b)257
000124436

vs Ziel Home Furnishing Technology Co., Ltd.

2024-11-19Art 25(1)(b)257
000121100

vs TABB Interior Systems B.V.

2024-01-15Art 25(1)(b)257
000121138

vs TABB Interior Systems B.V.

2024-01-15Art 25(1)(b)257
000121099

vs TABB Interior Systems B.V.

2024-01-15Art 25(1)(b)257
000120379

vs Ergosafe Aktiebolag

2023-10-26Art 25(1)(b)257
000120958

vs Yimei Zhu

2023-07-27Art 25(1)(b)257
000119859

vs BoZarc

2023-06-02Art 25(1)(b)257