DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002014068-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-05-15

000117392

Contested design: 002014068-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 002014068-0002 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

Meril Diagnostics Private Limitedvia PDF extraction

IN

Survey No. 135/139, Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi, Gujarat 396191, India

Holder · RCD owner

Cilag GmbH Internationalvia PDF extraction

Switzerland (CH)

Gubelstrasse 34, 6300 Zug, Switzerland

Prior art cited (2)

Prior use⚠ rejected as evidence

EES 'Curved Intraluminal Stapler' design allegedly disclosed through a 2010 catalogue, 2010 brochure, May 2010 press release and later affidavit

Ethicon Endo-Surgery materials / ASCRS press release · disclosed 2010-05-19

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Various curved stapler designs shown on the Surgical Stapler Museum website

http://www.surgicalstaplermuseum.com · surgicalstaplermuseum.com

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(2)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on the design of EES's curved intraluminal stapler allegedly disclosed before priority through a catalogue, brochure, press release, affidavit and a stapler website.
  • The holder replied that the prior designs were not precisely identified, the documents did not prove disclosure before the grace period, and the affidavit was unsupported and unreliable.
  • The Division held that the website evidence was untranslated and not individualized, while the catalogue, brochure and press release did not prove with sufficient certainty which stapler design was disclosed before 23/09/2010.
  • Because no earlier design was soundly proven to have been disclosed before the grace period, the invalidity grounds under Articles 5 and 6 failed and the application was rejected with costs against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberCarlos MATEO PÉREZ

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
000118097

vs CILAG GMBH INTERNATIONAL

2023-05-15Art 25(1)(b)247
000118077

vs CILAG GMBH INTERNATIONAL

2023-03-22Art 25(1)(b)247
000117453

vs SHANGHAI TENGXIANG TRAVEL PRODUCTS CO.,LTD

2023-03-20Art 25(1)(b)247
000117372

vs Biovico Sp. z o.o.

2023-02-23Art 25(1)(b)247
000115342

vs Elsa Vermögens- und Beteiligungs AG

2022-06-15Art 25(1)(b)247
000108861

vs Sofiane Lozano IBANEZ

2021-07-22Art 25(1)(b)247
000107461

vs CHANGCHUN XIA

2020-05-08Art 25(1)(b)247
000105480

vs FBGC Limited

2019-08-13Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)247