Invalidity · first instance · 2025-09-29
000126157
Contested design: 000845342-0002
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 000845342-0002 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
A. Schreiber KGvia PDF extraction
Austria (AT)
Wien, Austria
Holder · RCD owner
Illés Csók és Társa Vegyeskereskedő Kft
Hungary (HU)
Budapest, Hungary
Represented by
Prior art cited (6)
Wayback Machine printouts and internet order showing packaging/product images of the earlier nasal aspirator nose piece.
https://www.orrszivoporszivo.hu · Wayback Machine / orrszivoporszivo.hu
Wayback Machine printout showing an image of the earlier nasal aspirator nose piece.
BABY-VAC website · Wayback Machine / BABY-VAC website · disclosed 2006-01-03
Advertisement extract relating to BabyExpo and depicting the earlier nasal aspirator design.
'ANZEIGE' / 'RUNDSCHAU' / 'BABYEXPO' extract · disclosed 2005-06-12
Affidavit, product photos, flyers and poster alleging exhibition and sale of the earlier nasal aspirator design at Baby Expo events.
Affidavit and exhibition materials
Affidavit with exhibition photographs allegedly showing the earlier nasal aspirator design at Baby Expo events.
Affidavit and exhibition photographs
Undated layout of a new Austrian packaging box containing the nasal aspirator image.
Packaging layout
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, alleging the holder's older nasal-aspirator nose piece had been publicly disclosed in 2005-2006 through websites, advertisements, exhibitions and sales.
- ›Holder denied any proven public disclosure, challenged the reliability and dating of the evidence, and argued some images were exchanged confidentially within the parties' distribution relationship.
- ›The Division found the cited annexes did not precisely and fully identify the prior design or prove a dated public disclosure; affidavits from related persons were not sufficiently corroborated.
- ›Because disclosure under Article 7 was not established, the grounds under Articles 5 and 6 failed, so the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000129371 vs joboo GmbH | 2026-05-05 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 24 | 7 |
| 000126197 vs Illés Csók és Társa Vegyeskereskedő Kft | 2025-09-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 24 | 7 |
| 000126195 vs Illés Csók és Társa Vegyeskereskedő Kft | 2025-09-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 24 | 7 |
| 000126196 vs Illés Csók és Társa Vegyeskereskedő Kft | 2025-09-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 24 | 7 |
| 000128718 vs György Ranyák | 2025-08-04 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 24 | 7 |
| 000131246 vs Life Vac LLC | 2026-04-29 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 24 | 5 |
| 000131089 vs Rongrong Gao | 2026-04-23 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 24 | 5 |
| 000128555 vs Juliane Hesse-Ilyas | 2026-02-24 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 24 | 5 |