Invalidity · first instance · 2023-05-15
000118299
Contested design: 005253416-0001
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity against registered Community design No 005253416 is dismissed, and the applicant is ordered to pay the holder’s costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
1. Se-desestima la solicitud de declaración de nulidad del modelo comunitario registrado n.º 005253416. 2. Se condena al solicitante a que sufrague las costas del titular, fijadas en 400 EUR.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
S. i A. Pietrucha Spółka z ograniczoncursar odpowiedzialnościeuromediterráneovia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Przemysłowa 10, 98235 Błaszki, Polonia
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
Holder webpage describing the product incorporating the contested design and its characteristics.
http://www.wodospusty.pl/wodospustywinylowe · wodospusty.pl
Extract from ecoursesonline.iasri.res with recommendations on drain and field lateral shapes.
lesson 3 Design of Surface Drainage Systems · ecoursesonline.iasri.res
ROAD Business article by Marisa DiBlasio stating trapezoidal drains collect water and reduce erosion.
ditch Basics · ROAD Business
Polish public procurement document cited for trapezoid road outlet dimensions.
https://miniportal.uzp.gov.pl/Postepowania/6305f657-5b3e-4c8e-bcd897aaea2fe2a6 · miniportal.uzp.gov.pl
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity under Article 25(1)(b) CDR in conjunction with Article 8(1), arguing the contested fluid-distribution equipment was dictated exclusively by technical function.
- ›The holder argued key visual features, including the trapezoidal base, proportions, angles, and central vertical panel, also reflected aesthetic choices and design freedom.
- ›The Division accepted the product’s drainage function but found the applicant’s evidence insufficient to prove all appearance features were chosen solely for technical reasons.
- ›The invalidity application was rejected as unfounded, and the applicant was ordered to reimburse the holder’s representation costs of EUR 400.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila CELISOVA
- MemberElisabetta FERRARO
- MemberAlfonso CID GONZALEZ
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000104879 vs Robert Kaleski | 2020-06-25 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 7 |
| 000132264 vs SHANDONG QIYUE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY CO.,LTD | 2026-05-26 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 5 |
| 000131884 vs Zhaoqing Mikasi Home Hardware Co., LTD | 2026-03-27 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 5 |
| 000130601 vs Zhou Canbin | 2026-01-15 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 5 |
| 000127275 vs GRZEGORZ PIĄTEK PHU "TOP SERVIS" | 2025-09-17 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 5 |
| 000128177 vs DECATHLON | 2025-08-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 5 |
| 000126775 vs Ecomsoul Pro SRL | 2025-07-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 5 |
| 000126715 | 2025-07-10 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 5 |