DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008866115-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-01-29

000123694

Contested design: 008866115-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 008866115-0001 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Liebscher & Bracht Schmerzfrei GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Kaiser-Friedrich-Promenade 111, 61348 Bad Homburg v.d. Höhe, Deutschland

Holder · RCD owner

AllMates GmbH & Co. KG

Germany (DE)

Otto-Hahn-Straße 20, 61381 Friedrichsdorf,Deutschland

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosureD1

Liebscher & Bracht Original Rückenretter, stackable cylindrical component set

ASIN B092TMBZ53; https://www.amazon.de/dp/B092TMBZ53/ · Amazon.de · disclosed 2021-04-18

Web disclosureD2

Liebscher & Bracht Original Rückenretter, variant with recessed top part

ASIN B092TMBZ53; https://www.amazon.de/dp/B092TMBZ53/ · Amazon.de · disclosed 2021-04-18

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty, relying on two earlier Amazon-disclosed designs labelled D1 and D2.
  • The holder argued that only novelty had been pleaded, the evidence images were inadequate, and the contested design remained new and individually distinctive.
  • The Division accepted that D1 and D2 were disclosed before 22 February 2022 via Amazon.de and could be assessed under Article 7(1).
  • It found visible differences in the side recesses, dome surface, and number of wedge-shaped protrusions, so the earlier designs were not identical.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

21.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000108761

vs Xiangmei Weng

2020-06-23Art 25(1)(b)217
000130341

vs Mortensen Software Consulting ApS

2026-05-27Art 25(1)(b)215
000129371

vs joboo GmbH

2026-05-05Art 25(1)(b)215
000131885

vs Zhenkai Cui

2026-04-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)215
000129661

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29Art 25(1)(b)215
000129622

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)215
000129621

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29Art 25(1)(b)215
000129624

vs Squar3D Aps

2026-04-29Art 25(1)(b)215