DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006312831-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-03-01

000118040

Contested design: 006312831-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder’s fixed costs of EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 006312831-0001 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

Ejot Sverige ABvia PDF extraction

Sweden (SE)

Sandtagsv. 9, 702 36 Örebro, Sweden

Represented by

Tactical IPR AB

Fredrik Olsson

Holder · RCD owner

Arne Thuresson Byggmaterial AB

Sweden (SE)

Domnarvsgatan 21, 16353 Spånga, Sweden

Represented by

Fenix Legal KB

Prior art cited (5)

PatentDesign 1⚠ rejected as evidence

part of a screw showing ribs on the head

EP 3 128 190 A1

Web disclosureDesign 2⚠ rejected as evidence

screw shown in the 'Ms Reamer and Ms Twister' advertisement

https://www.fastenerandfixing.com/magazine-archive/issue-109/ · fastenerandfixing.com

Prior useDesign 3⚠ rejected as evidence

ESSVE screw

ESSVE

Prior useDesign 4⚠ rejected as evidence

Gunnebo screw

Gunnebo Fastenening

Prior useDesign 5⚠ rejected as evidence

Fermacell screw

Fermacell

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the screw design was a component part of a complex product, lacked novelty and individual character, and was solely dictated by technical function.
  • The holder replied that the screw was an independent product with distinctive helicoid head and self-drilling features, and that its appearance was not solely function-driven.
  • The Invalidity Division found the contested design was not a component part of a complex product and that the applicant had not proved all essential features were solely dictated by technical function.
  • The Division also found none of the five invoked prior designs was properly proven as disclosed under Article 7 CDR, so novelty and individual-character attacks could not succeed.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • 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

08.08

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000122442

vs CZECHPOL servis s.r.o.

2024-06-18Art 25(1)(b)087
000122554

vs CZECHPOL servis s.r.o.

2024-06-18Art 25(1)(b)087
000122334

vs PRETENSADOS DURÁN, S. L.

2024-06-06Art 25(1)(b)087
000122636

vs Wenzhou Falante Lock Industry Co. LTD.

2024-02-02Art 25(1)(b)087
000120319

vs MARTOM

2023-07-19Art 25(1)(b)087
000119299

vs Arne Thuresson Byggmaterial AB

2023-03-07Art 25(1)(b)087
000118177

vs MetroVision GmbH

2022-12-16Art 25(1)(b)087
000117095

vs Dingguo Zhang

2022-10-07Art 25(1)(b)087