DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 009196934-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-07-19

000120319

Contested design: 009196934-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

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

The application for a declaration of invalidity of Registered Community design No 009196934-0001 is rejected. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Eurobatt Sp. Z o.o. Sp. Komandytowavia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Mszczonowska 18a Janki, 05-090 Raszyn, Poland

Holder · RCD owner

MARTOM

Poland (PL)

Piaskowa 10, 66-008 Świdnica, Poland

Represented by

Anna Giercarz

Prior art cited (3)

Prior useattachment 1⚠ rejected as evidence

Sale invoices for 'Nóż strunowy' food cutters sold to the holder from January 2020 to April 2021.

invoices · disclosed 2020-01-31

Web disclosureattachment 2⚠ rejected as evidence

Allegro Archive printout and hyperlink showing several 'Nóż strunowy' food cutters.

https://archiwum.allegro.pl/listing?string=n%C3%B3%C5%BC%20strunowy&p=23 · Allegro Archive

Web disclosureattachment 3⚠ rejected as evidence

Partial CHH webpage printout for food cutters including product reference 'MB_8677 1.' and product images.

panel.chh.pl · disclosed 2016-09-12

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant claimed the contested food-cutter design lacked novelty because the same design had been marketed and used before filing, citing invoices and online listings.
  • The holder argued the cited cutter differed in the shape and ending of the handle and rubber bands.
  • The Division found the alleged prior design was not identified with sufficient precision and the invoices and internet printouts did not objectively prove disclosure under Article 7(1) CDR.
  • Because prior disclosure was not proven, the invalidity ground under Articles 25(1)(b), 4(1) and 5(1)(b) CDR failed and the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL

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

08.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000122442

vs CZECHPOL servis s.r.o.

2024-06-18Art 25(1)(b)087
000122554

vs CZECHPOL servis s.r.o.

2024-06-18Art 25(1)(b)087
000122334

vs PRETENSADOS DURÁN, S. L.

2024-06-06Art 25(1)(b)087
000122636

vs Wenzhou Falante Lock Industry Co. LTD.

2024-02-02Art 25(1)(b)087
000119299

vs Arne Thuresson Byggmaterial AB

2023-03-07Art 25(1)(b)087
000118040

vs Arne Thuresson Byggmaterial AB

2023-03-01Art 25(1)(b)087
000118177

vs MetroVision GmbH

2022-12-16Art 25(1)(b)087
000117095

vs Dingguo Zhang

2022-10-07Art 25(1)(b)087