Invalidity · first instance · 2025-09-05
000124955
Contested design: 015039302-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's fixed costs of EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered EU design No 015039302-0001 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
Raemon Riethovenvia PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
Noordwijk, Netherlands
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Terence A.H.F. Noppe h.o.d.n. EasySwift
Netherlands (NL)
Eindhoven, Netherlands
Represented by
Prior art cited (7)
window blind cleaners shown in an Alibaba extract
Alibaba web page extract · Alibaba · disclosed 2023-10-21
window blind cleaners shown in an Alibaba extract
Alibaba web page extract · Alibaba · disclosed 2023-10-24
window blind cleaners shown in an Alibaba extract
Alibaba web page extract · Alibaba · disclosed 2023-10-31
window blind cleaner designs shown on Keukengenie
www.keukengenie.nl · keukengenie.nl
offered window blind cleaner shown with price
www.alibaba.com · Alibaba
similar three-leg blind cleaners offered on Bol.com
www.bol.com · Bol.com
images of similar cleaners referenced in reply
https://images.app.goo.gl/1jaeGxUXuYu5xYhW7 · Google Images
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character and because the design was allegedly solely dictated by technical function, relying on internet disclosures predating 2 November 2023.
- ›The holder argued the online evidence was unverifiable and insufficient, invoked the grace period, and maintained that the design reflected visual and creative choices beyond pure functionality.
- ›The Division found the applicant had not substantiated Article 8(1) with objective evidence showing that all appearance features were exclusively technically dictated.
- ›The Division also found the cited internet materials did not prove disclosure under Article 7(1) because date, source, and design were not reliably shown together, so the application was rejected.
- ›As the losing party, the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's fixed representation costs of EUR 400.
Deciding panel
- MemberCarlos MATEO PÉREZ
- MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
- MemberChiara BORACE
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000122714 vs LEIFHEIT AG | 2024-06-21 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000122955 vs Jun Yu | 2024-02-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000120382 vs Jan Ładny | 2024-01-09 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000119103 vs DYSON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED | 2023-12-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000119138 vs DYSON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED | 2023-12-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000116628 vs DCX POLSKA Sp. z o.o. | 2023-01-13 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000117532 vs Suzhou Dibea Electrical Technology Co., Ltd. | 2022-09-21 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |
| 000112421 vs Rauch Furnace Technology GmbH | 2021-08-03 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 15 | 7 |