DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008517882-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-03-28

000118577

Contested design: 008517882-0002

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested registered Community design is declared invalid, and the holder must pay costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Dem Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung wird stattgegeben. 2. Das eingetragene Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster Nr. 008517882-0002 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

Schneid Gesellschaft m.b.H.via PDF extraction

Austria (AT)

Gewerbering 16, 8054 Pirka, Österreich

Represented by

Stefan Lausegger

Holder · RCD owner

aqotec GmbHvia PDF extraction

Austria (AT)

Vöcklatal 35, 4890 Weißenkirchen im Attergau, Österreich

Represented by

Clemens Thiele

Prior art cited (1)

Prior useD1

SCHNEID logo

Facebook pages, trade fair photos, and photo of the applicant's building

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying mainly on the earlier disclosed SCHNEID logo D1 and also invoking prior sign rights.
  • The holder argued the contested design remained new and individual, denied any design-relevant disclosure of the cited materials, and disputed protectable sign rights in SCHNEID.
  • The Division found D1 had been disclosed before the filing date through the combined evidence and that, for logos, designer freedom was broad.
  • It held the contested design created no different overall impression from D1 because both were dominated by the same italic SCHNEID lettering, so the design lacked individual character and was invalidated.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA

Decision files

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

Locarno classes

32.00

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000101919

vs TELEHOUSE

2019-07-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)3210
000103741

vs URBAN BUILDNG

2019-05-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)3210
000011067

vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd

2019-03-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)3210
000011077

vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd

2019-03-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)3210
000011075

vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd

2019-03-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)3210
000011072

vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd

2019-03-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)3210
000011081

vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd

2019-03-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)3210
000011068

vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd

2019-03-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)3210