Invalidity · first instance · 2024-05-22
000120679
Contested design: 008037261-0002
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
1. Se-desestima la solicitud de declaración de nulidad del modelo comunitario registrado n.º 008037261. 2. Se condena al solicitante a que sufrague las costas del titular, fijadas en 400 EUR.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Gyula Szivosvia PDF extraction
Hungary (HU)
Bercsényi utca 6., 5340 Kunhegyes, Hungría
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Nándor Szőnyivia PDF extraction
SK
ul. E.B. Lukáca 1356/36, 94501 Komárno, Eslovaquia
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
rubber grass grid with circular openings
Facebook post dated 2019-10-09 · Technoah BV Facebook account · disclosed 2019-10-09
Pro-Techna 1000x1000x65mm grass grid
Facebook post dated 2019-07-30 · Danny Coert Ko Stanthardt Facebook account · disclosed 2019-07-30
green rectangular grass grid
Facebook post dated 2019-12-14 · Ko Stanthardt Facebook account · disclosed 2019-12-14
grass grid shown on Facebook posts by Technoah distributors
https://www.facebook.com/tfaan.nl · Facebook · disclosed 2019-10-13
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that D1 to D4 disclosed the same slab design before filing, so the contested design lacked novelty and individual character and its connectors were technically dictated.
- ›The holder replied that the 2019 disclosures fell within the grace-period or abuse exceptions because former business partners had access to its earlier 2012-2014 drawings.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure of D1, D3 and D4, rejected D2 as insufficiently shown, and found the cited disclosures were attributable to the holder's earlier design development.
- ›Because Articles 7(2) and 7(3) excluded the invoked prior designs from the novelty and individual-character assessment, the Division did not need to examine Article 8(1) further.
- ›The invalidity application was therefore rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberIneta GALUBICKE
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000130245 vs G.B.S., s.r.o. | 2026-01-20 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000130202 vs SC PAMABA SRL | 2025-12-16 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000127997 vs Peng Zhang | 2025-12-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000127959 vs Peng Zhang | 2025-12-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000127935 vs Saunasell OÜ | 2025-11-07 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000127897 vs Saunasell OÜ | 2025-11-07 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000127898 vs Saunasell OÜ | 2025-10-20 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000124782 vs D.ELLINAS FACTORY PRODUCTS LTD | 2025-06-25 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |