Invalidity · first instance · 2022-10-26
000115912
Contested design: 000222070-0006
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld, the contested Community design is declared invalid, and the holder must bear costs fixed at EUR 750.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Dem Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung wird stattgegeben. 2. Das eingetragene Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster Nr. 000222070-0006 wird für nichtig erklärt. 3. Die Inhaberin trägt die Kosten, die auf 750 EUR festgesetzt werden.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
SMT GmbH
Germany (DE)
Ernst-Abbe-Str. 3, 72770 Reutlingen, Deutschland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Wolfgang Rixen
Germany (DE)
Friedenstr. 107-109, 42699 Solingen, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (3)
Paletti profile bar design
Paletti catalog April 2001 · Paletti Profilsysteme GmbH & Co. KG · disclosed 2001-04-01
Paletti profile bar design
Paletti catalog April 2002 · Paletti Profilsysteme GmbH & Co. KG · disclosed 2002-04-01
Paletti profile bar design
Paletti catalog April 2004 · Paletti Profilsysteme GmbH & Co. KG · disclosed 2004-04-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested profile-bar design lacked novelty and individual character over earlier Paletti disclosures and was also excluded under Articles 4 and 8 because it was invisible in use and technically dictated.
- ›The holders responded that the design was new and individual, reflected aesthetic choices despite technical constraints, remained visible in normal uses, and formed part of a modular system protected by Article 8(3).
- ›The Division found Article 4(2) inapplicable because the profile could have uses outside complex products and its cross-section could remain visible; it also held that exclusive technical function under Article 8(1) was not proved.
- ›Relying on disclosed prior design D1, the Division held that the contested design created no different overall impression and therefore lacked individual character under Article 6(1)(b), so the invalidity application was upheld in full.
Deciding panel
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
- MemberIvanka IVANOVA
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000108310 vs TA Towers ApS | 2026-06-19 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000108309 vs TA Towers ApS | 2026-06-19 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000130546 vs BESTON METAL S.R.L. | 2026-06-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000130586 vs ANTEC SOLAR S.R.L. | 2026-06-08 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000129804 vs Mirosław Mytnik StudioDelta.pl | 2026-05-06 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000129781 vs SHANGHAI KENDA INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. | 2026-02-09 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000126955 vs Decora S.A. | 2026-01-29 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |
| 000129761 vs Shanghai Kenda Industrial Co.,Ltd. | 2025-11-13 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 8 |