DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000969175-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-01-19

000116506

Contested design: 000969175-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity against Registered Community Design No 000969175-0001 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 000969175-0001 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

Dastex Reinraumzubehör GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Draisstraße 23, 76461 Muggensturm, Allemagne

Holder · RCD owner

BeMicron Société anonymevia PDF extraction

Belgium (BE)

rue Auguste Piccard 48, 6041 Charleroi, Belgique

Represented by

Van Innis & Delarue

Prior art cited (2)

PatentAnnexe 3

cleanroom suit

FR 2 810 855 A1 · French patent publication · disclosed 2002-01-04

PublicationAnnexe 5⚠ rejected as evidence

cleanroom suit model

CleanRooms, page 39, June 2008 · CleanRooms magazine

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(a)Article 3(a)Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6Article 7Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested cleanroom suit lacked unity, was dictated by technical function in key features, and lacked novelty and individual character over earlier patent disclosures.
  • The holder replied that the registration clearly showed a single cleanroom suit, the disputed loops and closures were not exclusively technical, and the prior French patent created a different overall impression.
  • The Division found no inconsistency in the seven views, treated the late CleanRooms model as inadmissible, and accepted only the French patent disclosure as relevant prior art for novelty and individual character.
  • Because the prior French model differed in visible features such as the eye opening, raglan sleeves, waist shape, and placement of buttons and loops, the contested design retained individual character and novelty, so the invalidity 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

02.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000123916

vs Crocs, Inc.

2024-11-18Art 25(1)(b)027
000123935

vs Crocs, Inc.

2024-11-18Art 25(1)(b)027
000120862

vs Dongguan Zhicheng Lighting Co., Ltd.

2024-11-06Art 25(1)(b)027
000122914

vs JSP Limited

2024-04-25Art 25(1)(b)027
000122915

vs JSP Limited

2024-04-25Art 25(1)(b)027
000121459

vs Birkenstock IP GmbH

2024-04-09Art 25(1)(b)027
000121479

vs Birkenstock IP GmbH

2024-04-08Art 25(1)(b)027
000121478

vs Birkenstock IP GmbH

2024-04-04Art 25(1)(b)027