Invalidity · first instance · 2024-05-29
000121617
Contested design: 002981464-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear 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 002981464-0001 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)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
Represented by
Prior art cited (5)
Design D1 depicted in the interactive online gaming magazine iNTERGAMINGi.
iNTERGAMINGi, Issue 1 2015 · iNTERGAMINGi
Design D2 depicted in the specialist games and gaming magazine InterGame.
InterGame, Volume 24, Issue 1, September 2017 · InterGame
Design D3 shown among three devices in the Belgrade Future Gaming catalogue.
BELGRADE FUTURE GAMING Official Catalogue and Buyers Guide · BELGRADE FUTURE GAMING
Design D4 depicted on a single undated page.
Design D5 depicted on undated pages bearing the text DLV and 25th ANNIVERSARY.
DLV / 25th ANNIVERSARY · DLV
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on designs D1 to D5 and later trying to add D6 in reply.
- ›The holder argued the grounds were unsubstantiated, challenged disclosure of D2 to D6, and maintained the contested design created a different overall impression.
- ›The Division held D6 inadmissible because it was introduced too late and found only D1 was proven disclosed before the filing date; D2 to D5 lacked timely proof of disclosure.
- ›Comparing D1 with the contested design, the Division found significant differences in shape, proportions, and details, so the contested design had individual character and was not identical.
- ›The invalidity application was rejected in full, and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's fixed representation costs of EUR 400.
Deciding panel
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
- MemberElisabetta FERRARO
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000128896 vs Sc Pitikot Store Srl | 2025-08-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000124438 vs АУТДОР ПЛЕЙ | 2025-04-03 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000126927 vs Jiujiang Storm E-Commerce Co., Ltd. | 2025-03-25 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000121616 vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o. | 2024-05-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000121615 vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o. | 2024-05-10 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000114244 vs UTILIS | 2024-01-09 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000121427 vs Jinhua Baiwei Plastic Products Co., Ltd. | 2023-11-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000119359 vs TECH LIVING LIMITED | 2023-06-12 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |