DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002981464-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-05-29

000121616

Contested design: 002981464-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 002981464-0002 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

Gameservice s.c. (Artur Luśnia and Robert Zajdel)via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Tysiąclecia 18, 38400 Krosno, Poland

Holder · RCD owner

nano Vo Sp. z o.o.

Poland (PL)

ul.Jasna 28, 44-100, Gliwice, Poland

Prior art cited (4)

Prior useD1⚠ rejected as evidence

gaming terminal / machine

BF games · EAE 2017 / Entertainment Arena EXPO, Bucharest · disclosed 2017-09-04

Prior useD2⚠ rejected as evidence

gaming terminal / machine

Betixx

Prior useD3⚠ rejected as evidence

gaming terminal / machine

VSA VOEGTLE & SCHWEIZER AG · VSA VOEGTLE & SCHWEIZER AG

PublicationD4⚠ rejected as evidence

gaming terminal / machine

Tipbet brochure 2016 · Tipbet brochure · disclosed 2016-12-31

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on four earlier gaming-machine designs labelled D1 to D4.
  • The holder argued the evidence was insufficient to prove timely disclosure and, in any event, the contested design created a different overall impression.
  • The Division held the later-introduced D5 was inadmissible because it expanded the subject matter beyond the original application.
  • The Division found none of D1 to D4 was proven disclosed before 11/02/2016 under Article 7(1), so the claimed novelty and individual-character defects were unsubstantiated.
  • The application was rejected as unfounded, and the applicant was ordered to bear the holder's representation costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO

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

21.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000128896

vs Sc Pitikot Store Srl

2025-08-18Art 25(1)(b)217
000124438

vs АУТДОР ПЛЕЙ

2025-04-03Art 25(1)(b)217
000126927

vs Jiujiang Storm E-Commerce Co., Ltd.

2025-03-25Art 25(1)(b)217
000121617

vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o.

2024-05-29Art 25(1)(b)217
000121615

vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o.

2024-05-10Art 25(1)(b)217
000114244

vs UTILIS

2024-01-09Art 25(1)(b)217
000121427

vs Jinhua Baiwei Plastic Products Co., Ltd.

2023-11-15Art 25(1)(b)217
000119359

vs TECH LIVING LIMITED

2023-06-12Art 25(1)(b)217