DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004731347-0009

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-06-25

000124781

Contested design: 004731347-0009

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 004731347-0009 is rejected, and the applicant is ordered to pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Se deniega la solicitud de declaración de nulidad del dibujo o modelo comunitario registrado no 004731347-0009. 2. Se condena al solicitante a que sufrague las costas del titular, fijadas en 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Airtechnic — Chatzoudis Etaireia Periorismenis Euthynisvia PDF extraction

GR

Nea Chalkidona, Atenas, Grecia

Holder · RCD owner

D.Ellinas Factory Products LTDvia PDF extraction

CY

Limassol, Chipre

Represented by

Konstantina Diola

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureD1⚠ rejected as evidence

holder's air-conditioning grille/slot diffuser design shown in Facebook screenshots

Facebook posts dated 22/05/2017 · Facebook · disclosed 2017-05-22

CatalogD2

installed product photograph of the holder's linear slot diffuser design

CANYON FLOWBAR SYSTEMS catalogue · holder catalogue · disclosed 2017-12-31

CatalogD3⚠ rejected as evidence

similar air grille design from I. Lioli & CO O.E. AIR grilles catalogue

AIRGRILLES_SL-L catalogue excerpt · downloadable catalogue · disclosed 2017-10-30

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

other linear diffuser designs, including Price Industries results

Google Image Search results dated 28/02/2018 · Google Image Search · disclosed 2018-02-28

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 7(2)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested air-conditioning grille design lacked novelty and individual character over the holder's Facebook and catalogue disclosures, the I. Lioli catalogue, and other Google search results.
  • The applicant also argued that the design's essential features were solely dictated by technical function, while the holder relied on the Article 7 grace period, challenged disclosure, and denied pure functionality.
  • The Division found the visible linear grille and slot were not shown to be exclusively technically dictated, although internal nozzle, plenum, and adjustable vane features served technical functions and were excluded from further comparison.
  • For novelty and individual character, D1 and D2 fell within the grace period and the remaining cited materials did not prove reliable prior disclosure under Article 7, so all invalidity grounds 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