Invalidity · first instance · 2025-09-29
000126195
Contested design: 000842877-0001
Outcome
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 000842877-0001 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
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 (4)
Alleged prior design of the connection piece to the vacuum cleaner for a nasal aspirator shown on archived webpages and packaging imagery.
https://www.orrszivoporszivo.hu; BABY-VAC website · Wayback Machine · disclosed 2005-12-17
Advertisement allegedly showing the same nasal aspirator connection piece in a newspaper extract.
BabyExpo advertisement extract dated 12/06/2005 · Advertisement extract labelled ANZEIGE/RUNDSCHAU/BABYEXPO · disclosed 2005-06-12
Affidavit, product photos, flyers and poster alleging exhibition and sale of the same nasal aspirator connection piece in 2005 and 2006.
Affidavit with Annexes 5.1-5.4 concerning Baby Expo exhibitions in Graz and Vienna · Baby Expo exhibitions and alleged sales in Austria
Affidavit and exhibition photographs allegedly showing the same nasal aspirator connection piece at Baby Expo events.
Affidavit with Annexes 6.1-6.4 concerning exhibition photographs · Baby Expo exhibitions in Graz and Vienna
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant claimed the contested design lacked novelty and individual character because the same vacuum-cleaner connection piece for a nasal aspirator had been disclosed before filing through websites, advertising, exhibitions and sales.
- ›The holder denied proven disclosure, argued much of the evidence was undated or confidential, challenged the affidavits as interested-party evidence, and said the prior design was not clearly identifiable.
- ›The Invalidity Division accepted the late annexes procedurally but found the metadata references inadequate, the alleged prior design insufficiently reproduced, and the affidavits unsupported by solid, objective corroboration.
- ›Because disclosure under Article 7(1) EUDR was not proven, the Division did not assess novelty or individual character further and rejected the invalidity application.
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 |
| 000126157 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 |