DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008104822-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-06-18

000122554

Contested design: 008104822-0001

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 008104822-0001 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

MET-GAL Sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul.Galicyjska 9, 32-040 Rzeszotary, Poland

Represented by

Marek Mikosza

Holder · RCD owner

Czechpol servis s.r.o.via PDF extraction

Czechia (CZ)

Sokolovská 2112/74c, 32300 Plzeň, Czech Republic

Represented by

Langrova, s.r.o.

Prior art cited (2)

CatalogDesign 1

hanger / coat hook design shown in the applicant's 2018 catalogue

Wieszak WM 40 G5 · applicant's 2018 catalogue and sales invoices

Web disclosureDesign 2⚠ rejected as evidence

hanger / coat hook design shown on the applicant's website

Wieszak WM 040 P2 · applicant's website extracts

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 5(2)Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on earlier WM 040 hanger disclosures in its catalogue, invoices, and website materials.
  • Holder denied invalidity, arguing the contested design had noticeable differences, especially screw holes, sharper edges, and a different central pin shape, and challenged disclosure of the prior designs.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of Design 1 through the catalogue corroborated by invoices, but found the website materials insufficient to prove disclosure of Design 2.
  • Comparing the disclosed prior design with the contested design, the Division found visible differences in edges, holes, colour, and unshared views, so novelty and individual character were not defeated and the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico D'ERRICO
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • 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

08.08

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000122442

vs CZECHPOL servis s.r.o.

2024-06-18Art 25(1)(b)087
000122334

vs PRETENSADOS DURÁN, S. L.

2024-06-06Art 25(1)(b)087
000122636

vs Wenzhou Falante Lock Industry Co. LTD.

2024-02-02Art 25(1)(b)087
000120319

vs MARTOM

2023-07-19Art 25(1)(b)087
000119299

vs Arne Thuresson Byggmaterial AB

2023-03-07Art 25(1)(b)087
000118040

vs Arne Thuresson Byggmaterial AB

2023-03-01Art 25(1)(b)087
000118177

vs MetroVision GmbH

2022-12-16Art 25(1)(b)087
000117095

vs Dingguo Zhang

2022-10-07Art 25(1)(b)087