DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008146088-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-08-03

000120879

Contested design: 008146088-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 008146088-0001 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Hi-Tech Automotive (Pty) Ltdvia PDF extraction

ZA

106 Park Drive St Georges, Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape 60001, South Africa

Represented by

Lewis Silkin Ireland

Holder · RCD owner

AC Cars Ltd

CY

Maria House, Avlonos Street, 1075 Nicosia, Cyprus

Prior art cited (1)

Prior useFigure 1⚠ rejected as evidence

AC Aceca motor vehicle

Witness statement paragraph 17; Exhibits NP2 and NP3 ('AC COBRA THE COMPLETE STORY' and 'SHELBY AND AC COBRA' by Brian Laban)

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, arguing the contested design corresponded to the AC Aceca developed in the 1950s and disclosed before the grace period.
  • The applicant relied on a photograph reproduced as Figure 1, a witness statement, and Exhibits NP2 and NP3 to prove prior disclosure of the earlier design.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division held that the witness statement was uncorroborated and the cited exhibits did not identify or show the relied-on prior design sufficiently to prove disclosure under Article 7(1) CDR.
  • The application was rejected as unfounded, and the applicant was ordered to bear the holder's costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO

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

12.08

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000128826

vs Shenzhen Lireder Industrial Co., Ltd.

2025-08-18Art 25(1)(b)127
000120579

vs Lohia e-mobility GmbH

2025-03-12Art 25(1)(b)127
000120480

vs VER PLAST S.r.l.

2023-11-13Art 25(1)(b)127
000120158

vs elobau GmbH & Co. KG

2023-11-10Art 25(1)(b)127
000120409

vs VER PLAST S.r.l.

2023-11-10Art 25(1)(b)127
000120410

vs VER PLAST S.r.l.

2023-11-10Art 25(1)(b)127
000118758

vs HANGZHOU CHIC INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD

2023-10-16Art 25(1)(b)127
000118721

vs HANGZHOU CHIC INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD

2023-10-16Art 25(1)(b)127