DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008533418-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-05-15

000122975

Contested design: 008533418-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld, Registered Community design No 008533418-0001 is declared invalid, and the holder must bear the costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Dem Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung wird stattgegeben. 2. Das eingetragene Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster Nr. 008533418-0001 wird für nichtig erklärt. 3. Die Inhaberin trägt die Kosten, die auf 750 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Sysbo AGvia PDF extraction

Switzerland (CH)

Viscosestrasse 46, 9443 Widnau, Schweiz

Represented by

Stefan Lausegger

Holder · RCD owner

aqotec GmbHvia PDF extraction

Austria (AT)

Vöcklatal 35, 4890 Weißenkirchen im Attergau, Österreich

Represented by

Clemens Thiele

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosureD1

SYSBO logo used on the applicant's website and brochures

www.sysbo.ch · www.sysbo.ch / Internet Archive Wayback Machine and applicant brochure · disclosed 2008-05-03

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity because the contested logo design allegedly lacked novelty and individual character in light of the earlier SYSBO logo D1, and it also invoked copyright-based unauthorised use.
  • The holder argued the cited materials were not design-relevant prior art, disclosure of the earlier sign was unproven, bad faith was not an available invalidity ground, and the applicant had not established copyright ownership or infringement.
  • The Division found D1 had been publicly disclosed before filing through archived pages of www.sysbo.ch and the applicant's January 2018 brochure, satisfying Article 7(1) CDR.
  • Comparing the signs, it held that both showed the same SYSBO word element with a horizontal white bar and differed only slightly in colour, which did not change the overall impression on the informed user.
  • The contested design therefore lacked individual character under Article 6(1)(b) CDR, so the invalidity application was upheld and the holder was ordered to pay EUR 750 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

32.00

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000010599

vs DN Trade Group Ltd.

2018-03-28REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f)3210
000127735

vs CATTELAN ITALIA S.P.A.

2026-02-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)328
000130984

vs qin xi

2026-02-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)328
000124695

vs W.R. Lang GmbH

2025-01-24REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)328
000124696

vs SOG®Systeme GmbH & Co. KG

2025-01-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)328
000124718

vs SOG®Systeme GmbH & Co. KG

2025-01-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)328
000126078

vs STADA Arzneimittel AG

2024-10-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)328
000126064

vs STADA Arzneimittel AG

2024-10-09REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)328