DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008529499-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-10-19

000119400

Contested design: 008529499-0003

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay EUR 750 in costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 008529499-0003 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Pars Pro Toto BVBAvia PDF extraction

Belgium (BE)

Snepkaai 5, 9000 Gent, Belgium

Represented by

K.O.B. N.V.

Holder · RCD owner

AME Group Marcin Hernas

Poland (PL)

ul. Jaskółcza 58, 43340 Kozy, Poland

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCD

flying disc (toy)

RCD No 007328141-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2019-12-16

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the contested flying disc lacked novelty and individual character over earlier RCD No 007328141-0001 and also invoked Article 25(1)(d).
  • Holder argued differences in the hole arrangement and central circle created novelty and a different overall impression, and also relied on additional prior designs to allege market saturation.
  • The Division held Article 25(1)(d) did not apply because the earlier RCD had been published before the contested filing date, so it was not a prior right within that provision.
  • Assessing individual character under Article 25(1)(b) and Article 6(1)(b), the Division found the designer had broad freedom and the differences were too minor to alter the overall impression.
  • The application was upheld, the contested design was declared invalid in full, and the holder was ordered to pay costs fixed at EUR 750.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • 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

21.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000106419

vs TONG DE LIMITED

2019-09-03REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)2110
000131885

vs Zhenkai Cui

2026-04-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000129622

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000129681

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000126976

vs Dohány Kft.

2026-04-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000131547

vs Brandworl Management Co., Limited

2026-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000131507

vs Shenzhen Chenyu New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-03-31REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218
000130128

vs joboo GmbH

2026-02-03REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)218