DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007905195-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-04-04

000117375

Contested design: 007905195-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 007905195-0001 is declared invalid. 2. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Joanna Rafalskavia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Gen. Władysława Sikorskiego 26/64, 40282 Katowice, Poland

Holder · RCD owner

Biovico Sp. z o.o.

Poland (PL)

Hutnicza 15B, 81061 Gdynia, Poland

Represented by

Małgorzata Matyka

Prior art cited (1)

Prior use

Large inserter and halfpipe guide surgical instrument set

AR 211 / AR 204.1 · Applicant invoices and brochure

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested surgical instrument set lacked novelty and individual character because her earlier AR 211 and AR 204.1 instruments had already been marketed and disclosed before filing.
  • The holder challenged the disclosure evidence, argued the documents did not clearly identify the products or market impact, and maintained that the compared designs were neither identical nor similar.
  • The Division found disclosure established through the combination of invoices and brochure material and considered the informed user familiar with surgical instruments, with an average degree of designer freedom.
  • The common features outweighed the minor differences, so the contested design lacked individual character and the invalidity application was upheld in full.

Deciding panel

  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO

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

24.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131246

vs Life Vac LLC

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)247
000131089

vs Rongrong Gao

2026-04-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)247
000128555

vs Juliane Hesse-Ilyas

2026-02-24REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)247
000129035

vs OMNIOXY SPÓŁKA AKCYJNA

2025-09-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)247
000127199

vs Xiamen Tuoke Trading Co., Ltd.

2025-03-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)247
000125355

vs Shenzhen Sainuotong Technology Co., Ltd.

2024-10-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)247
000125317

vs Life Vac LLC

2024-08-16REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)247
000123775

vs Schunk Ingenieurkeramik GmbH

2024-07-24REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)247