Invalidity · first instance · 2022-12-13
000117077
Contested design: 001653676-0002
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear 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 001653676-0002 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
Hamster Polska Sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Pod Hałdą 37B, 44206 Rybnik Poland
Represented by
Anna Agnieszka Szczurek
Holder · RCD owner
Budotechnika Sp. o.o.
Poland (PL)
ul. Bierawka 2a, 44-145 Pilchowice Poland
Represented by
Justyna Pawłowska
Prior art cited (3)
Photographs of an earlier outdoor/public automatic toilet design submitted by the applicant.
Photographs submitted by the applicant
Image of an automatic public toilet design shown as 'Plik:Automatyczna toaleta publiczna.jpg'.
https://pl.wikipedia.org · Wikipedia · disclosed 2008-12-02
Archived webpage showing the earlier outdoor/public automatic toilet design.
https://web.archive.org/web/20081219034657/http://www.toaletybudotechnika.com.pl/ · Internet Archive / toaletybudotechnika.com.pl · disclosed 2008-12-19
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant claimed the contested outdoor toilet design lacked novelty because the same design had been disclosed before filing, mainly through 2008 photographs, a Wikipedia image, and an archived website page.
- ›The holder disputed the applicant's evidence, arguing the archived website text did not prove what was shown at the fair, the design was only publicly disclosed in May 2009 within the grace period, and the Wikimedia upload was unauthorized.
- ›The Division rejected the standalone photographs as unproven disclosures, but accepted the Wikipedia and Wayback Machine extracts as evidence that the earlier design was publicly available before the filing date and outside the grace period.
- ›The Division found the earlier design and the contested design were not identical because the prior disclosure lacked the contested design's lateral view and did not reveal certain additional features and interior details.
- ›Because the applicant relied only on lack of novelty and failed to prove identicality, the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
- MemberElisabetta FERRARO
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000128596 vs Griptel AB | 2025-07-17 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000124436 vs Ziel Home Furnishing Technology Co., Ltd. | 2024-11-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000121100 vs TABB Interior Systems B.V. | 2024-01-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000121099 vs TABB Interior Systems B.V. | 2024-01-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000121138 vs TABB Interior Systems B.V. | 2024-01-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000120379 vs Ergosafe Aktiebolag | 2023-10-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000120958 vs Yimei Zhu | 2023-07-27 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000119859 vs BoZarc | 2023-06-02 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |