DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008640825-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-01-13

000116628

Contested design: 008640825-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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 0086408250001 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

Cryptochilli s.r.o.via PDF extraction

Czechia (CZ)

Ocelářská 2457/7, Libeň, 19000 Praha, Czech Republic

Represented by

Klára Labalestra

Holder · RCD owner

DCX Polska Sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Poleczki 23, 02822 Warszawa, Poland

Represented by

Radim Charvát

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosureD1⚠ rejected as evidence

DCX Immersion Mining Universal Enclosure

Holder's Facebook post dated 23/03/2020; www.cryptocooling.eu; YouTube videos dated 20/08/2020 and 21/08/2020 · Facebook / www.cryptocooling.eu / YouTube · disclosed 2020-03-23

Web disclosureD2⚠ rejected as evidence

IMMERSION BOX

www.cryptochilli.eu · www.cryptochilli.eu · disclosed 2021-06-29

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on the holder's earlier online disclosures and the applicant's own IMMERSION BOX website disclosure.
  • The holder argued the Facebook evidence was incomplete, the applicant's product was copied from the holder's earlier design, and the applicant's disclosure fell within the Article 7(2) grace period.
  • The Division found D1 insufficiently disclosed because the Facebook and video materials did not fully and separately identify the relied-on prior design with the required precision.
  • The Division treated D2 as resulting from information provided by the holder about its earlier disclosed design, so D2 could not be considered prior art under Article 7(2).
  • The application was rejected as unsubstantiated, and the applicant was ordered to bear the holder's fixed representation costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

15.0723.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000124955

vs Terence A.H.F. Noppe h.o.d.n. EasySwift

2025-09-05Art 25(1)(b)157
000125335

vs Digikor Oy

2025-02-11Art 25(1)(b)237
000122714

vs LEIFHEIT AG

2024-06-21Art 25(1)(b)157
000122955

vs Jun Yu

2024-02-26Art 25(1)(b)157
000121854

vs Zhenhua Sun

2024-02-26Art 25(1)(b)237
000120382

vs Jan Ładny

2024-01-09Art 25(1)(b)157
000119138

vs DYSON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED

2023-12-19Art 25(1)(b)157
000119103

vs DYSON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED

2023-12-19Art 25(1)(b)157