DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008037261-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-05-22

000120719

Contested design: 008037261-0004

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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

SBGK Ügyvédi Iroda

Holder · RCD owner

Nándor Szőnyivia PDF extraction

SK

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

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureD1

grass grid slab with circular openings

https://www.facebook.com/113886545376422/photos/a.657718650993206/2819675434797506/ · Facebook (Technoah BV account) · disclosed 2019-10-09

Web disclosureD2⚠ rejected as evidence

Pro-Techna 1000x1000x65mm grass grid

Facebook (Danny Coert Ko Stanthardt account) · disclosed 2019-07-30

Web disclosureD3

green rectangular grass grid slab

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2646097305472330&id=100002162590575&set=a.336746656407418&source=57&refid=52&__tn__=EH-R · Facebook (Ko Stanthardt account) · 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 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 7(2)Article 7(3)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that Facebook disclosures D1 to D4 destroyed novelty and individual character and that the edge connectors were technically dictated.
  • The holder replied that the cited disclosures came from former business partners or distributors, derived from its earlier drawings, and fell within Articles 7(2) and 7(3) CDR.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of D1, D3 and D4, rejected D2 as insufficiently shown, and found the cited designs attributable to the holder's earlier design development.
  • Because Articles 7(2) and 7(3) excluded the invoked designs from the novelty and individual-character assessment, the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

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