DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002968677-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-03-04

000120408

Contested design: 002968677-0001

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 002968677-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Luxrad Polska Mazur i Wspólnicy Spółka Komandytowo-Akcyjnavia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Parkowa 1, 05800 Pruszków, Poland

Holder · RCD owner

Instal Projekt Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnościąvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Jana Pawła II 12A, Nowa Wieś k/Włocławka, 87-853 Kruszyn, Poland

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosureD1

Facebook post showing the 'NAMELESS' radiator

Facebook account “Дизайн-радиаторы Instal Projekt в Молдове” · disclosed 2014-09-30

CatalogD2

instal projekt technical catalogue showing the 'NAMELESS' radiator

GRZEJNIKI DLA PROFESJONALISTY / RADIATORS FOR A PRO · instal projekt catalogue · disclosed 2014-10-15

CatalogD3

Leroy Merlin catalogue showing the 'NAMELESS' radiator

Leroy Merlin catalogue grzejniki 2014/2015 collection · Leroy Merlin catalogue · disclosed 2014-10-10

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7(1)Article 7(2)

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the radiator design had been disclosed before the grace period through a Facebook post and two catalogues, so it lacked novelty and individual character.
  • Holder disputed the probative value of the Facebook and catalogue evidence and maintained the contested design was new and created a different overall impression.
  • The Division accepted the Facebook and catalogue materials as reliable disclosures before 2 February 2015 and treated D2 as a valid prior design.
  • Comparing D2 with the contested design, the Division found only a minor difference in the number of horizontal radiators and no different overall impression on the informed user.
  • The application was upheld and the contested design was declared invalid for lack of individual character.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • 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

23.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000132264

vs SHANDONG QIYUE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY CO.,LTD

2026-05-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000131884

vs Zhaoqing Mikasi Home Hardware Co., LTD

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000130601

vs Zhou Canbin

2026-01-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000127275

vs GRZEGORZ PIĄTEK PHU "TOP SERVIS"

2025-09-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000128177

vs DECATHLON

2025-08-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000126775

vs Ecomsoul Pro SRL

2025-07-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
0001267152025-07-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000128196

vs Rafał Sowa

2025-07-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238