Invalidity · first instance · 2025-06-10
000126156
Contested design: 015056246-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered EU design No 015056246-0001 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
Wojciech Cisowskivia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Kraków, Poland
Represented by
Łukasz Kasprzyk
Holder · RCD owner
MARTOM
Poland (PL)
Świdnica, Poland
Represented by
Anna Giercarz
Prior art cited (13)
bird scarer
www.odstraszanie.pl · WayBack Machine · disclosed 2020-09-21
bird scarer
https://archiwum.allegro.pl · Allegro archive · disclosed 2019-05-26
bird scarer
https://archiwum.allegro.pl · Allegro archive · disclosed 2020-04-29
bird scarer
https://archiwum.allegro.pl · Allegro archive · disclosed 2015-01-08
bird scarer
https://archiwum.allegro.pl · Allegro archive · disclosed 2015-02-22
bird scarer
https://archiwum.allegro.pl · Allegro archive · disclosed 2015-03-02
bird scarer
https://archiwum.allegro.pl · Allegro archive · disclosed 2015-03-21
bird scarer
https://archiwum.allegro.pl · Allegro archive · disclosed 2015-03-09
bird scarer
https://archiwum.allegro.pl · Allegro archive · disclosed 2015-03-25
bird scarer
https://archiwum.allegro.pl · Allegro archive · disclosed 2015-03-26
bird scarers shown in sales report images
Trade Watch sales report · Trade Watch
bird scarer
ASIN B07 CHT XRFV · Amazon.de · disclosed 2018-04-18
bird scarer
ASIN B07 DK3 1CN1 · Amazon.de · disclosed 2016-02-29
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant claimed the contested bird-scarer design lacked novelty because the same design had been publicly marketed online in Poland and Germany since at least 2015.
- ›The holder argued the applicant was neither the design author nor the online seller and that the cited images differed in posture, beak size and feather structure.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure of D1-D10 and D12-D13, but rejected D11 because the images were too small and blurred to identify the design reliably.
- ›Comparing the disclosed designs with the five registered views, the Division found visible differences or missing views prevented identity, so the contested design remained new.
- ›The application was rejected in full, and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's fixed representation costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
- MemberDimitrios ANDRIANOPOULOS
- MemberEmmanuel COLLIN
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000127915 vs SHEN ZHEN MIN DUN SAFE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD | 2026-02-27 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 22 | 5 |
| 000130022 vs ChunRun Zhou | 2025-11-27 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 22 | 5 |
| 000127201 vs CarpFuture | 2025-10-14 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 22 | 5 |
| 000124998 vs EVOLUTION INTERNATIONAL S.R.L. | 2024-08-14 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 22 | 5 |
| 000119298 vs SNIPERMECHANICS LTD | 2023-01-23 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 22 | 5 |
| 000118041 vs Weihai hunthouse fishing tackle Co,.Ltd | 2022-09-20 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 22 | 5 |
| 000117459 vs SHUIHUA LIU | 2022-06-16 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 22 | 5 |
| 000116029 vs Linyi Jiezhong Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. | 2022-03-08 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 22 | 5 |