DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008435754-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-03-14

000117839

Contested design: 008435754-0003

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld, the contested Community design 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. 008435754-0003 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 pistol shown in the 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)Article 7(2)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on earlier water-pistol disclosures, including D1 shown on YouTube and Twitter more than one year before filing.
  • The holder disputed disclosure, especially on Twitter and YouTube, argued technical constraints limited design freedom, and maintained the contested design created a different overall impression.
  • The Division accepted the YouTube screenshots for D1 as a public disclosure from 30 July 2018 and found the holder had not rebutted that disclosure or shown materially reduced design freedom.
  • Comparing D1 with the contested design, the Division found the same overall impression on the informed user, declared the design invalid under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 4 and 6, and awarded costs 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