DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000222070-0009

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-10-18

000115911

Contested design: 000222070-0009

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld; Registered Community design No 000222070-0009 is declared invalid.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Dem Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung wird stattgegeben. 2. Das eingetragene Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster Nr. 000222070-0009 wird für nichtig erklärt.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Alcom International GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Ernst-Abbe-Str. 3, 72770 Reutlingen, Deutschland

Holder · RCD owner

Wolfgang Rixenvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Friedenstr. 107-109, 42699 Solingen, Deutschland

Prior art cited (4)

National designD1

German design for a profile bar / building material

M8904902-0001 · Germany

CatalogD2

Paletti profile bar design

Paletti catalog April 2001 · Paletti Profilsysteme GmbH & Co. KG · disclosed 2001-04-01

CatalogD3

Paletti profile bar design

Paletti catalog April 2002 · Paletti Profilsysteme GmbH & Co. KG · disclosed 2002-04-01

CatalogD4

Paletti profile bar design

Paletti catalog April 2004 · Paletti Profilsysteme GmbH & Co. KG · disclosed 2004-04-01

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 4(2)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 8(1)Article 8(2)Article 8(3)

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the contested profile-bar design lacked novelty and individual character over earlier designs D1 to D4, was invisible in normal use as a component part, and was excluded by Articles 8(1) and 8(2).
  • Holders said the design was new and individual, included aesthetic choices beyond technical function, remained visible in some uses, and in any event formed part of a modular system under Article 8(3).
  • The Division found Article 4(2) inapplicable because the profile cross-section could remain visible in intended use, and it rejected the objections based on purely technical function and must-fit features.
  • Relying on Paletti catalog disclosure D2, the Division held the contested design created no different overall impression and therefore lacked individual character under Article 6(1)(b), so the design was invalidated in full.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA

Decision files

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

Locarno classes

25.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129804

vs Mirosław Mytnik StudioDelta.pl

2026-05-06REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000129781

vs SHANGHAI KENDA INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.

2026-02-09REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000126955

vs Decora S.A.

2026-01-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000129761

vs Shanghai Kenda Industrial Co.,Ltd.

2025-11-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000127177

vs Hermanus Johannes Matheus Verdegaal

2025-10-14REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000129361

vs Xiaoxia LI

2025-10-09REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000129266

vs Taiyuan Jiuchangsheng Trading Co., Ltd.

2025-10-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000124780

vs D.ELLINAS FACTORY PRODUCTS LTD

2025-06-25REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258