Invalidity · first instance · 2023-06-02
000105099
Contested design: 000096102-0005
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity 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 000096102-0005 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
trilatec GmbH
Germany (DE)
Forsthausstraße 10, 66663 Merzig, Germany
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Eltete Tpm Oy
Finland (FI)
P.O. Box 94 07901 Loviisa, Finland
Represented by
Prior art cited (10)
pallet foot for loading pallets
WO 94/02366 · WIPO · disclosed 1994-02-03
pallet foot for loading pallets
WO 95/20526 · WIPO · disclosed 1995-08-03
pallet foot for loading pallets
EP 1 033 313 A1 · European Patent Office · disclosed 2000-09-06
pallet foot for loading pallets
EP 0 334 329 A2 · European Patent Office · disclosed 1989-09-27
pallet foot for loading pallets
JP 2002068193 A · Japanese patent application · disclosed 2002-03-08
pallet foot for loading pallets
US 3 881 429 · United States patent · disclosed 1975-05-06
pallet foot for loading pallets
WO 93/07067 · WIPO · disclosed 1993-04-15
pallet foot for loading pallets
US 5 377 600 · United States patent · disclosed 1995-01-03
Wayback Machine captures showing pallet-foot images identified as pappal1.jpg, pappal2.jpg and pappal3.jpg
www.eltete.com · Wayback Machine · disclosed 2002-06-25
website image of a pallet-foot product
www.cartopal.com · Wayback Machine · disclosed 2001-10-08
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on patent documents and archived web disclosures and also invoking technical-function objections.
- ›The holder challenged parts of the evidence as untranslated, grace-period material, post-dating the filing date, poor-quality internet captures, and argued the contested design created a different overall impression.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure of D1 to D8 and D9, but rejected the Eltete website captures because their image quality was too poor to permit a reliable comparison.
- ›After excluding some technically dictated features, the Division found the contested design's protruding upper U-profile and smooth thin surfaces created a different overall impression from each prior design.
- ›The invalidity grounds under Articles 25(1)(b), 5 and 6 CDR were not made out, so the application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila CELISOVA
- MemberElisabetta FERRARO
- MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000131625 vs WISTRON INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD | 2026-06-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000131606 vs WISTRON INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD | 2026-06-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000129508 vs Messerle GmbH | 2026-04-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000129522 vs Messerle GmbH | 2026-04-14 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000127995 vs Jaroslav Masopust | 2026-02-06 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000129516 vs MOHAMAR JAMOU | 2026-01-14 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000128115 vs GREEN TEAM EUROPE A/S | 2025-11-20 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000123774 vs Gusta Garden GmbH | 2024-11-06 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |