Invalidity · first instance · 2024-09-23
000123736
Contested design: 015022339-0006
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 015022339-0006 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Łukasz Błaszczykvia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Sieraków 74, 32-410 Dobczyce, Poland
Holder · RCD owner
JSM Fitness Spółka Z Ograniczoną Odpowiedzialnościąvia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Bociana 6C/66, 31-231 Kraków, Poland
Prior art cited (5)
exercising apparatus 'Squat wedge block bloczek pochyly slant board'
archiwum.allegro.pl offer No 13341345089 · Allegro Archive / Allegro · disclosed 2023-03-17
exercising apparatus 'Squat wedge block bloczek pochyly slant board'
ASIN B0BJ2VPLVJ · Amazon.de · disclosed 2022-07-27
'3 PCS Squat wedge block' exercising apparatus from the Zhichengbosi Store
ASIN B0B23ZY7WH · Amazon.co.uk
exercising apparatus 'Squat wedge block bloczek pochyly slant board'
Allegro offer No 15415112498 · Allegro.pl
similar exercising apparatus from the Topfinder brand
ASIN B09ZP2B326 · Amazon.pl
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant claimed the contested exercising-apparatus design lacked novelty because identical products had been offered online before 22/05/2023, relying on Allegro and Amazon web evidence.
- ›The holder replied that it created both the contested and earlier design and that the cited disclosures fell within the Article 7(2) grace period attributable to the holder.
- ›The Division admitted only the novelty ground and disregarded the applicant's later individual-character arguments and new prior designs as inadmissible extensions of the case.
- ›It accepted disclosure of the initial online evidence but found the earlier design not identical because some features could not be compared and the visible differences were not immaterial.
- ›The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to bear the holder's costs, with no representation amount fixed because the holder had no professional representative.
Deciding panel
- MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
- MemberEmmanuel COLLIN
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deGerman | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000130341 vs Mortensen Software Consulting ApS | 2026-05-27 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000129371 vs joboo GmbH | 2026-05-05 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000129621 vs Squar3D Aps | 2026-04-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000129624 vs Squar3D Aps | 2026-04-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000129661 vs Squar3D Aps | 2026-04-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000130709 vs Shantou Chenghai district Shuangjia plastic toy factory | 2026-02-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000128937 vs Liyou Industrial Co., Ltd | 2026-02-24 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000130683 vs Shengzhi Jiang | 2026-02-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |