DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004506186-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-05-10

000121615

Contested design: 004506186-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected and the applicant must pay the holder’s fixed costs of EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 004506186-0002 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

Gameservice s.c. (Artur Luśnia and Robert Zajdel)via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Tysiąclecia 18, 38400 Krosno, Poland

Holder · RCD owner

nano Vo Sp. z o.o.

Poland (PL)

ul.Jasna 28, 44-100, Gliwice, Poland

Prior art cited (5)

CatalogD1⚠ rejected as evidence

gaming machine

BF Games catalogue

PublicationD2⚠ rejected as evidence

device shown as 'Easy Info Point'

Entertainment Arena Expo leaflet

CatalogD3⚠ rejected as evidence

stand terminal device

Betix Terminals catalogue

CatalogD4

betting terminal

Your guide to Casino & Gaming catalogue

CatalogD5

betting terminal

Your guide to Casino & Gaming catalogue

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant alleged the contested betting terminal lacked novelty and individual character, relying on several earlier gaming and betting terminal designs.
  • Holder argued D1 to D3 were not proven disclosed or otherwise could not support invalidity, and D4 to D5 created different overall impressions.
  • The Division treated a later-filed prior design as inadmissible, accepted disclosure only for D4 and D5, and found the designer's freedom was not severely limited.
  • Because the contested design produced a different overall impression and was not identical to the invoked prior designs, the application was rejected with costs against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico D'ERRICO
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO

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

21.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000128896

vs Sc Pitikot Store Srl

2025-08-18Art 25(1)(b)217
000124438

vs АУТДОР ПЛЕЙ

2025-04-03Art 25(1)(b)217
000126927

vs Jiujiang Storm E-Commerce Co., Ltd.

2025-03-25Art 25(1)(b)217
000121617

vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o.

2024-05-29Art 25(1)(b)217
000121616

vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o.

2024-05-29Art 25(1)(b)217
000114244

vs UTILIS

2024-01-09Art 25(1)(b)217
000121427

vs Jinhua Baiwei Plastic Products Co., Ltd.

2023-11-15Art 25(1)(b)217
000119359

vs TECH LIVING LIMITED

2023-06-12Art 25(1)(b)217