DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015039751-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-07-02

000124156

Contested design: 015039751-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

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 015039751-0001 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

OBDTech Łukasz Podsiadłovia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Aleja Komisji Edukacji Narodowej 36 lok. 112B, 02797 Warszawa Poland

Represented by

Joanna Kluczewska-Strojny

Holder · RCD owner

Autoelektronika Maciej Świdnicki

Poland (PL)

Ul. Stabika 10, 44-103 Gliwice Poland

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosureD1⚠ rejected as evidence

Autel MaxiPRO MP808 scanner product listing

allegro.pl · allegro.pl · disclosed 2018-06-25

Web disclosureD2⚠ rejected as evidence

Autel MaxiDAS DS808 scanner product listing

allegro.pl · allegro.pl

Web disclosureD3⚠ rejected as evidence

scanner product listing

allegro.pl · allegro.pl · disclosed 2021-01-02

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on earlier scanner designs allegedly offered on allegro.pl before the contested design's filing date.
  • The holder's detailed response is not reproduced; the decision notes only in general terms that it denied the applicant had rights against the contested design.
  • The Division held the applicant had not proven disclosure of the invoked earlier designs because the internet extracts lacked source information such as full URL details.
  • Without proven disclosure under Article 7 CDR, the prior designs could not support the Article 5 and 6 grounds, so the invalidity application failed.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico D'ERRICO
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberCristina SENERIO LLOVET

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

14.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129183

vs Yi Duan

2025-09-16Art 25(1)(b)147
000121322

vs Shenzhen Hongshi Trading Co., Ltd.

2024-02-15Art 25(1)(b)147
000116928

vs Nintendo Co., Ltd.

2022-08-31Art 25(1)(b)147
000116470

vs SENOR TECH CO., LTD.

2022-06-09Art 25(1)(b)147
000115511

vs AIMO MARKING CO., LTD

2021-11-25Art 25(1)(b)147
000107739

vs Shenzhen Sinobry Electronic Ltd

2020-01-16Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)147
000101619

vs caresyntax GmbH

2019-06-17Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)147
000102939

vs Andres Meseguer Lozano

2019-06-05Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)147