DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008044010-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-01-12

000117573

Contested design: 008044010-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application against registered Community design No 008044010-0002 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 008044010-0002 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

Vaisala France SASvia PDF extraction

France (FR)

43 rue de Liège, 75008 Paris, France

Represented by

IPAZ

Holder · RCD owner

B.R.C 77 (Baie Rack Container) Société par actions simplifiée à associé uniquevia PDF extraction

France (FR)

route de Sainte-Poix, 35370 Le Pertre, France

Represented by

Selarl Avoxa Rennes

Prior art cited (3)

OtherAnnexe 1⚠ rejected as evidence

Test report for Windcube Box samples

Laboratoire National de Météorologie et d’Essais · disclosed 2019-08-29

PublicationAnnexe 2⚠ rejected as evidence

Windcube presentation

LEOSPHERE

OtherAnnexe 3⚠ rejected as evidence

Technical specifications for a Windcube v2 enclosure

100746_112016 · Vaisala France / LEOSPHERE

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 7(2)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character and argued that the contested enclosure's features were solely dictated by technical function.
  • The holder argued the cited materials did not prove public disclosure, some fell within the grace period, and the design was not exclusively functional.
  • The Division found Annexes 1 to 3 insufficient to prove effective public disclosure under Article 7 and therefore did not reach a novelty or individual-character conflict with any prior design.
  • The Division also found the enclosure's cubic form was not exclusively imposed by technical function, so the Article 8(1) ground failed and the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberJessica N. LEWIS
  • MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES

Decision files

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

Locarno classes

09.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000127595

vs Shenzhen Beipengxing Technology Co., Ltd

2025-04-15Art 25(1)(b)097
000126496

vs Jiangmen Xinhui Zhenghua Ironware Co., Ltd.

2025-03-07Art 25(1)(b)097
000119700

vs Guohua He

2023-10-29Art 25(1)(b)097
000119221

vs Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo

2023-10-22Art 25(1)(b)097
000121263

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121319

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121318

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121320

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097