Invalidity · first instance · 2022-12-13
000117379
Contested design: 001783523-0002
Outcome
The invalidity application against registered Community design No 001783523-0002 is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(fr)
1. La demande en nullité à l’encontre du dessin ou modèle communautaire enregistré nº 001783523-0002 est rejetée. 2. La demanderesse supporte les frais de la titulaire, fixés à 400 EUR.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Remoran Oyvia PDF extraction
Finland (FI)
Harventajankuja 3, 24130 Salo, Finlande
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Watt and Sea S.A.R.Lvia PDF extraction
France (FR)
4, Rue Marc Seguin, 17000 La Rochelle, France
Represented by
Prior art cited (7)
Sail-world.com article showing a hydro-generator prototype
Sail-world.com · disclosed 2008-10-28
Images from a Dailymotion video showing a hydro-generator
https://www.dailymotion.com · Dailymotion · disclosed 2008-01-01
Magazine images of a hydro-generator
Magazine Course au large n°37 · Course au large · disclosed 2009-08-01
Watt & Sea hydro-generator brochure and related Calameo publication
https://en.calameo.com/ · Calameo · disclosed 2009-10-09
Deployable vortex turbine mounted on wing tip
US 4 917 332 · United States patent publication · disclosed 1990-04-17
1967 thesis extract about a wing-tip turbine
Effets d'une turbine montée sur l’extrémité de l'aile sur la portance de l'aile, la traînée induite et le schéma tourbillonnaire de l’aile · Oklahoma State University Library · disclosed 1968-01-01
1985 NASA technical study on a wing-tip vortex turbine
NASA / U.S. Air Force AEDC Library · disclosed 1985-01-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on prior hydro-generator disclosures D1-D4 and aviation-related documents D5-D7.
- ›The holder argued its earlier prototype differed significantly from the contested design and challenged the relevance, quality, and accessibility of several cited disclosures.
- ›The Division accepted D1-D5 to varying extents as prior material, rejected D6 and D7 as valid disclosures, and found the contested design created a different overall impression on the informed user.
- ›The pleaded grounds under Articles 25(1)(b), 4, 5, and 6 CDR were not made out, so the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded to the holder.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila CELISOVA
- MemberJessica N. LEWIS
- MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000124975 vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH | 2025-08-01 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 7 |
| 000124937 vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH | 2025-07-14 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 7 |
| 000126960 vs Qiu Chen | 2025-05-21 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 7 |
| 000122734 vs Changjiang Xutangrui Technology Co., Ltd. | 2024-06-05 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 7 |
| 000122617 vs Shanghai Cuiliang E-commerce Co., Ltd | 2024-02-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 7 |
| 000121023 vs Piotr Malinowski | 2023-07-21 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 7 |
| 000116129 vs WD Plus GmbH | 2022-08-30 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 7 |
| 000111943 vs Shenzhen Cuco Smart Technology Co., Ltd | 2021-01-22 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 7 |