DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008795009-0005

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-05-15

000122441

Contested design: 008795009-0005

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holders' costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 008795009-0005 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holders’ costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Activeshop Sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Graniczna 8B DC2A, 54-610 Wrocław, Poland

Represented by

Agnieszka Byra

Holder · RCD owner

Piotr Malinowski

Poland (PL)

ul. Piotrkowska 270, 90-361 Łódź, Poland

Represented by

Maria Przybylska-Karczemska

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosureprior design 1⚠ rejected as evidence

'abrasive cutter' for nail milling machines

https://archiwum.allegro.pl · Allegro online archive · disclosed 2019-11-18

Web disclosureprior design 2⚠ rejected as evidence

design referenced via Allegro archive hyperlink

https://archiwum.allegro.pl · Allegro online archive · disclosed 2019-12-31

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on two earlier designs allegedly disclosed on the Allegro archive website.
  • The holders argued the earlier designs did not defeat novelty or individual character and that the contested design created a different overall impression within a limited design freedom.
  • The Division found the applicant had not provided solid evidence of disclosure because the website extract lacked a relevant disclosure date and bare hyperlinks were insufficient proof.
  • Because disclosure under Article 7 CDR was not proven, the earlier designs could not be considered and the invalidity application was rejected as unfounded.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberChiara BORACE
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES

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

28.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000125115

vs Mihua Li

2024-07-31Art 25(1)(b)287
000123998

vs Shenzhen First Century Technology Co., Ltd.

2024-05-16Art 25(1)(b)287
000120698

vs Guangdong Roman Technology Co., Ltd

2024-01-25Art 25(1)(b)287
000108601

vs Wahl Clipper Corporation

2023-07-31Art 25(1)(b)287
000120778

vs GUANGDONG HUANENGDA ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES CO.,LTD.

2023-07-17Art 25(1)(b)287
000120758

vs Zhaojie Zhang

2023-07-13Art 25(1)(b)287
000119166

vs Salon Europe Limited

2023-06-09Art 25(1)(b)287
000119939

vs 900

2023-06-09Art 25(1)(b)287