DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004731347-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-06-25

000124768

Contested design: 004731347-0003

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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 004731347-0003 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

Airtechnic - Chatzoudis Etaireia Periorismenis Euthynisvia PDF extraction

GR

Nea Chalkidona, Athens, Greece

Holder · RCD owner

D.Ellinas Factory Products LTDvia PDF extraction

CY

Limassol, Cyprus

Represented by

Konstantina Diola

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureD1⚠ rejected as evidence

inspection/access panels shown on the holder's website, catalogue and LinkedIn post

http://dellinas.eu/ · Wayback Machine / holder website · disclosed 2014-11-21

CatalogD2.1

square inspection/access panel with rounded corners

KNAUF Drywall Systems catalogue · KNAUF catalogue dated 09/2007

CatalogD2.2

square inspection/access panel variant disclosed in the same catalogue

KNAUF Drywall Systems catalogue · KNAUF catalogue dated 09/2007

CatalogD3⚠ rejected as evidence

inspection/access panel shown in a EUROFIRST leaflet

Technical description of the PPM/WA TVS access panels and its materials · EUROFIRST leaflet

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on earlier inspection-hole designs disclosed on the holder's website, LinkedIn, catalogues and third-party catalogues.
  • The holder disputed disclosure, invoked the Article 7 exception for its own earlier materials, argued the contested design had distinct functional and visual features, and cited related Cyprus court proceedings.
  • The Division found D1 and D3 were not proven disclosures because the representations and dating evidence were insufficient, while the KNAUF catalogue adequately disclosed two prior designs labelled D2.1 and D2.2.
  • Comparing D2.1 and D2.2 with the contested design, the Division found clear visual differences in framing, corners, surface and views, so the contested design retained individual character and the application failed.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL

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

25.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000130245

vs G.B.S., s.r.o.

2026-01-20Art 25(1)(b)257
000130202

vs SC PAMABA SRL

2025-12-16Art 25(1)(b)257
000127997

vs Peng Zhang

2025-12-15Art 25(1)(b)257
000127959

vs Peng Zhang

2025-12-15Art 25(1)(b)257
000127935

vs Saunasell OÜ

2025-11-07Art 25(1)(b)257
000127897

vs Saunasell OÜ

2025-11-07Art 25(1)(b)257
000127898

vs Saunasell OÜ

2025-10-20Art 25(1)(b)257
000124782

vs D.ELLINAS FACTORY PRODUCTS LTD

2025-06-25Art 25(1)(b)257