000120318

• ›The applicant sought invalidity under Article 25(1)(b), arguing that the visible parts of the contested boiler component lacked novelty and individual character over D1-D10 and that some features were purely technical.
• ›The holder argued the application was inadmissible because an earlier invalidity case had already addressed the same design, challenged disclosure of the YouTube and manual evidence, and maintained that the earlier designs created different overall impressions.
• ›The Division rejected the res judicata objection, found D1, D2, D3 and D5-D10 sufficiently disclosed but held D4 unproven because the manual lacked a reliable publication source and date.
• ›On the merits, the Division found the visible component parts eligible for protection and concluded that the contested design produced a different overall impression from each admissible prior design, so it had individual character and was not identical to any earlier design.
• ›The invalidity application was rejected in full, and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

• MemberRebecca Santana Davies
• MemberBenjamin VAN Bavel
• MemberLudmila terapéuticos ELIŠOVÁ

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