DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008566822-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-07-12

000121836

Contested design: 008566822-0003

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 008566822-0003 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

Smart View s.r.o.via PDF extraction

Czechia (CZ)

Nivy 313, 76502 Otrokovice Czech Republic

Holder · RCD owner

AMV Technology s.r.o.

Czechia (CZ)

Masarykovo náměstí 210, 76361 Napajedla Czech Republic

Represented by

Tomas Pavlica

Prior art cited (1)

Prior use⚠ rejected as evidence

matrix light / bar light design

MX-90 · catalogue, emails, trade fair materials, and Internet Archive website captures relied on by the applicant

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 25(1)(f)Article 25(3)

Argument summary

  • The applicant alleged the contested matrix light lacked novelty and individual character over its earlier MX-90 light and also claimed unauthorized use of a copyright-protected work under Czech law.
  • The holder asked for rejection of the invalidity application and maintenance of the contested design in the Register.
  • The Division found the catalogue, invoices, technical drawings, emails, trade-fair materials, and Wayback Machine captures did not solidly prove prior disclosure of the relied-on design under Article 7(1) CDR.
  • On the copyright ground, the Division held the applicant had not proved ownership or enforceable rights in the invoked work because the submitted declaration showed it was only a licensee.
  • The application was rejected in full, and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico D'ERRICO
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberEmmanuel COLLIN

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

26.05

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000121816

vs AMV Technology s.r.o.

2024-07-12Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f)269
000127916

vs Volvo Car Corporation

2026-02-11Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f)267
000128736

vs Senjia (Dongguan)Electronic Technology Co., LTD

2025-07-11Art 25(1)(b)267
000125015

vs Honglan YIN

2025-02-10Art 25(1)(b)267
000124516

vs YUYAO HILITE ELECTRIC CO.,LTD

2024-12-19Art 25(1)(b)267
000121120

vs DELTA LIGHT NV

2024-06-18Art 25(1)(b)267
000121119

vs DELTA LIGHT NV

2024-06-13Art 25(1)(b)267
000120900

vs DELTA LIGHT NV

2024-06-10Art 25(1)(b)267