Invalidity · first instance · 2024-01-09
000120382
Contested design: 008436166-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear 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 008436166-0001 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
Radosław Materakvia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Chłopska 10, 46-320 Praszka, Poland
Holder · RCD owner
Jan Ładny
Poland (PL)
ul. Biała 6, 32-700 Bochnia Poland
Represented by
Prior art cited (5)
Screenshots of bearings/components allegedly identical to the contested design.
igus.pl; inbear.pl · igus.pl; inbear.pl · disclosed 2023-04-17
Printouts showing iglidur M250, iglidur SG03 and iglidur X products allegedly identical to the contested bearing.
https://www.igus.pl · igus.pl · disclosed 2023-04-17
Printouts from inbear.pl showing bearing-related products/components allegedly identical to the contested design.
https://inbear.pl · inbear.pl · disclosed 2023-04-17
Video of the construction of a BEKO DIS DFN DSFS washing pump, relied on to show an identical bearing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c-Mx9gG8Qo · YouTube
Video of the construction of a Bosch washing pump, relied on to show an identical bearing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyoJnvVMS5g · YouTube
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity under Article 25(1)(b) CDR, arguing the bearing was an invisible component of a dishwasher pump and lacked individual character over bearings shown online and in videos.
- ›The holder argued the internet evidence post-dated the filing date, the links and videos were evidentially insufficient, invisibility in normal use was unproven, and the cited products differed from the contested design.
- ›The Division found the evidence did not show the contested bearing incorporated in a complex product so as to prove invisibility during normal use under Article 4(2) CDR.
- ›The Division also found no prior design had been validly disclosed before the filing date because the screenshots, printouts and video links did not sufficiently prove disclosure under Article 7(1) CDR.
- ›The application was rejected in full as unfounded, and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's fixed representation costs of EUR 400.
Deciding panel
- MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberAlfonso CID GONZÁLEZ
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000124955 vs Terence A.H.F. Noppe h.o.d.n. EasySwift | 2025-09-05 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000122714 vs LEIFHEIT AG | 2024-06-21 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000122955 vs Jun Yu | 2024-02-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000119103 vs DYSON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED | 2023-12-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000119138 vs DYSON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED | 2023-12-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000116628 vs DCX POLSKA Sp. z o.o. | 2023-01-13 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000117532 vs Suzhou Dibea Electrical Technology Co., Ltd. | 2022-09-21 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000112421 vs Rauch Furnace Technology GmbH | 2021-08-03 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |