DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008037261-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-05-22

000120718

Contested design: 008037261-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear 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 0080372610001 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

Gyula Szivosvia PDF extraction

Hungary (HU)

Bercsényi utca 6., 5340 Kunhegyes, Hungary

Represented by

SBGK Ügyvédi Iroda

Holder · RCD owner

Nándor Szőnyivia PDF extraction

SK

ul. E.B. Lukáca 1356/36, 94501 Komárno, Slovakia

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureD1

grass grid slab with circular holes

Facebook · disclosed 2019-10-09

Web disclosureD2⚠ rejected as evidence

partially shown grass grid slab with circular holes

Facebook · disclosed 2019-07-30

Web disclosureD3

green rectangular grass grid slab

Facebook · disclosed 2019-12-14

Web disclosureD4

grass grid slab disclosed on Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/tfaan.nl · Facebook · disclosed 2019-10-13

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(2)Article 7(3)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over four Facebook-disclosed grass-grid designs and also argued the edge connectors were purely functional under Article 8(1).
  • The holder replied that the cited disclosures came from its former business partner within the 12-month grace period and resulted from information provided by, or abuse toward, the holder.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of D1, D3 and D4, but found D2 insufficiently shown because the images did not reveal the whole design clearly enough for comparison.
  • It found the invoked disclosures stemmed from the holder's earlier drawings and business relationship, so Article 7(2) or 7(3) prevented all cited designs from counting against the contested design.
  • The application was rejected as unsubstantiated, with no need to assess novelty, individual character or Article 8 further, and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberIneta GALUBICKE

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

25.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000130245

vs G.B.S., s.r.o.

2026-01-20Art 25(1)(b)257
000130202

vs SC PAMABA SRL

2025-12-16Art 25(1)(b)257
000127997

vs Peng Zhang

2025-12-15Art 25(1)(b)257
000127959

vs Peng Zhang

2025-12-15Art 25(1)(b)257
000127935

vs Saunasell OÜ

2025-11-07Art 25(1)(b)257
000127897

vs Saunasell OÜ

2025-11-07Art 25(1)(b)257
000127898

vs Saunasell OÜ

2025-10-20Art 25(1)(b)257
000124782

vs D.ELLINAS FACTORY PRODUCTS LTD

2025-06-25Art 25(1)(b)257