DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005809852-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-06-12

000119161

Contested design: 005809852-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay 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 005809852-0001 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

PolyTech A/Svia PDF extraction

Denmark (DK)

Industrivej 37, 6740 Bramming, Denmark

Represented by

Zacco Denmark A/S

Holder · RCD owner

Dansk Gummi Industri A/S

Denmark (DK)

Profilvej 18, 6000 Kolding, Denmark

Represented by

Patrade A/S

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCD

containers

RCD 003301829-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-07-25

Registered RCD

containers

RCD 003140003-0011 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-05-31

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty, lack of individual character, and technical-function exclusivity, relying on two earlier RCD container designs.
  • Holder argued the contested design was a distinct solid transport pad with different grooves, cavities, tapering shape, and rounded features, and denied that its appearance was solely technically dictated.
  • The Division found the Article 8(1) claim unsubstantiated because the evidence did not show that technical function alone determined the design’s features.
  • The Division held that the cited prior designs created different overall impressions, so the contested design remained new and possessed individual character; the invalidity application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberIneta GALUBICKE
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ

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

09.08

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000127595

vs Shenzhen Beipengxing Technology Co., Ltd

2025-04-15Art 25(1)(b)097
000126496

vs Jiangmen Xinhui Zhenghua Ironware Co., Ltd.

2025-03-07Art 25(1)(b)097
000119700

vs Guohua He

2023-10-29Art 25(1)(b)097
000119221

vs Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo

2023-10-22Art 25(1)(b)097
000121263

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121319

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121318

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121320

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097