Invalidity · first instance · 2025-09-29
000126197
Contested design: 000845342-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application against EU design No 000845342-0001 is rejected and the applicant must pay EUR 400 in costs to the holder.
Show verbatim operative text(it)
La domanda di dichiarazione di nullità del disegno o modello dell'UE registrato n. 000845342-0001 è respinta. Il richiedente sopporta l'onere delle spese del titolare, fissate a 400 EUR.
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, Ungheria
Represented by
Prior art cited (5)
Wayback Machine capture allegedly showing the older nasal aspirator nozzle design
https://www.orrszivoporszivo.hu · Internet Archive · disclosed 2005-12-17
Wayback Machine capture allegedly showing the older nasal aspirator nozzle design
https://www.orrszivoporszivo.hu · Internet Archive · disclosed 2006-01-27
Wayback Machine capture allegedly showing the older nasal aspirator nozzle design
BABY-Y — VAC website · Internet Archive · disclosed 2006-01-03
Newspaper advertisement allegedly showing the older nasal aspirator design
newspaper extract · disclosed 2005-06-12
Alleged prior public display and sale of the older nasal aspirator design in Austria
Baby Expo Graz/Vienna and related affidavits, flyers, packaging and web materials · Baby Expo / related supporting materials
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested nasal-aspirator part lacked novelty and individual character because an older version had been disclosed online, in advertising, and at Austrian baby fairs before filing.
- ›The holder disputed disclosure, challenged the dating and independence of the affidavits and exhibits, and argued that the alleged prior design had not been precisely and reliably reproduced.
- ›The Division admitted later-filed supporting exhibits but found the Wayback, advertising, affidavit, exhibition, and packaging evidence insufficient to prove a clear public disclosure of an identifiable prior design.
- ›Because disclosure under Article 7 was not established, the Division did not need to assess novelty or individual character on the merits.
- ›The application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder’s costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENto
- 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 |
| 000126157 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 |