Invalidity · first instance · 2023-02-15
000116929
Contested design: 006039046-0002
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 0060390460002 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
TelForceOne S.A.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Krakowska 119, 50428, Wrocław, Poland
Holder · RCD owner
4KRAFT spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnościąvia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Tatrzańska 1/5, 60413, Poznań, Poland
Prior art cited (5)
car seat and baby stroller combinations
M98000400001 · German Patent and Trade Mark Office Designs Bulletin · disclosed 1998-09-10
baby strollers
M97010500001 · German Patent and Trade Mark Office Designs Bulletin · disclosed 1997-08-25
wheels for baby strollers
M97038870001 · German Patent and Trade Mark Office Designs Bulletin · disclosed 1997-10-25
GRACO EVO 3 IN 1 stroller wheel design
SMYK sale newsletters, supported by Graco 2014 and 2018 catalogues · disclosed 2012-11-07
Kinderkraft 2Way Next Green Balance Bike wheel design
Allegro offer No 6784238445 · Allegro and TradeWatch · disclosed 2017-04-12
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over three earlier German designs, GRACO stroller wheels, and alleged pre-grace-period self-disclosure of Kinderkraft bike wheels.
- ›Holder argued the claims were unsubstantiated, the earlier Kinderkraft bike used different wheels, Allegro images could be swapped later, and the contested wheel differed in hub, rim chamfering, and spoke geometry.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure of the German designs and GRACO stroller wheels, but disregarded the alleged Kinderkraft self-disclosure because the holder credibly showed the contested wheel was introduced only within the grace period.
- ›Comparing the disclosed prior designs with the contested wheel, the Division found visible differences in rim chamfering, solid hub, spoke arrangement, and strengthening elements, producing a different overall impression.
- ›The application was rejected under Articles 6 and 5, and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's fixed representation costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila CELISOVA
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
- MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENÉ
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000128826 vs Shenzhen Lireder Industrial Co., Ltd. | 2025-08-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 7 |
| 000120579 vs Lohia e-mobility GmbH | 2025-03-12 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 7 |
| 000120480 vs VER PLAST S.r.l. | 2023-11-13 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 7 |
| 000120158 vs elobau GmbH & Co. KG | 2023-11-10 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 7 |
| 000120409 vs VER PLAST S.r.l. | 2023-11-10 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 7 |
| 000120410 vs VER PLAST S.r.l. | 2023-11-10 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 7 |
| 000118758 vs HANGZHOU CHIC INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD | 2023-10-16 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 7 |
| 000118721 vs HANGZHOU CHIC INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD | 2023-10-16 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 12 | 7 |