DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004731347-0011

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-06-25

000124782

Contested design: 004731347-0011

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay 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 004731347-0011 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

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

Air Grilles / 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 7Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character and argued the design’s essential features were solely dictated by technical function.
  • The holder argued the design remained new and distinctive, invoked the Article 7 grace period for its own disclosures, and denied the design was purely functional.
  • The Division found the visible grill and slot were not solely functional, even if internal nozzle, plenum, and vane features were technical and excluded from comparison.
  • The Division held D1 and D2 fell within the grace period and the remaining materials did not prove valid public disclosure, so all invalidity grounds failed and the application was rejected.

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
000124781

vs D.ELLINAS FACTORY PRODUCTS LTD

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