DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008019996-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-03-14

000117837

Contested design: 008019996-0002

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must bear costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Dem Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung wird stattgegeben. 2. Das eingetragene Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster Nr. 008019996-0002 wird für nichtig erklärt. 3. Die Inhaberin trägt die Kosten, die auf 750 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

DesignNest B.V.via PDF extraction

Netherlands (NL)

Keulschevaart 19, 3621 MX Breukelen, Niederlande

Represented by

Ab Ovo Patents B.V.

Holder · RCD owner

Spyra GmbH

Germany (DE)

Tengstr. 34, 80796 München, Deutschland

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosureD1

water gun shown in the YouTube video 'Spyra One | Next Level of Water Gun Design | Now LIVE on Kickstarter! (July 2018)'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUcW1iZ8x_k · YouTube · disclosed 2018-07-30

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on earlier water-gun designs allegedly disclosed by the holder on Twitter and YouTube more than one year before filing.
  • The holder denied effective prior disclosure, argued the Twitter and YouTube materials should not count or be considered, and maintained the contested design created a different overall impression under functional constraints.
  • The Division found the YouTube screenshots sufficient to prove D1 was publicly disclosed on 2018-07-30 and held the holder had not rebutted that disclosure under Article 7.
  • Comparing D1 with the contested design, the Division found the same overall impression on the informed user despite minor differences, so the design lacked individual character.
  • The invalidity application was upheld, the contested design was declared invalid in full, and costs of EUR 750 were awarded against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA

Decision files

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

Locarno classes

21.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131885

vs Zhenkai Cui

2026-04-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000129622

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000129681

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000126976

vs Dohány Kft.

2026-04-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000131547

vs Brandworl Management Co., Limited

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000131507

vs Shenzhen Chenyu New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-03-31REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000130128

vs joboo GmbH

2026-02-03REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000130086

vs CROSS BORDEP (HK) CO., LIMITED

2026-02-02REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218