Invalidity · first instance · 2025-12-15

000114141

Contested design: 002138008-0031

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application against EU design No 002138008-0031 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 002138008-0031 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

VDS Czmyr Kowalik Spółka Komandytowavia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Świętochłowice, Poland

Represented by

CWMIP Chimiak Witkowska Muczkowska i Pilecka Sp. j.

Holder · RCD owner

M&T 1997, a.s.via PDF extraction

Czechia (CZ)

Dobruška, Czech Republic

Represented by

Milan Škoda

Prior art cited (7)

Registered RCDD1

handle

EU design No 000084892-0028 · EU Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2004-01-27

Web disclosureD2

CHANT INTOUCH line 5012 handle

http://www.chantintouch.com (archived 2010-05-26) · Internet Archive / chantintouch.com · disclosed 2010-05-26

CatalogD4⚠ rejected as evidence

REGUITTI Q-INSERT handle

yumpu.com.it/document/read/20792555/reguitti-catalogo-2012-appendice-parte-2-pdf · REGUITTI catalogue / yumpu.com.it · disclosed 2012-12-31

CatalogD5⚠ rejected as evidence

REGUITTI Q-ARTE handle

yumpu.com.it/document/read/20792555/reguitti-catalogo-2012-appendice-parte-2-pdf · REGUITTI catalogue / yumpu.com.it · disclosed 2012-12-31

Web disclosureD6⚠ rejected as evidence

Square LSQVII-G FORMANI handle

architonic.com/en/product/formani-square-isqvii-g/1235033 · architonic.com

Registered RCDD7

handle

EU design No 000268339-0012 · EU Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2007-01-09

CatalogD8⚠ rejected as evidence

TUPAI 3034 handle

https://issuu.com/topaisa/docs/catalogo_tupai_geral_2011 · Issuu / TUPAI catalogue · disclosed 2016-12-16

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

›After remittal, the applicant maintained that the contested door-handle design lacked individual character over prior designs D1, D2, D4, D5, D6, D7 and D8.
›The holder argued the design remained protectable because its rounded edges, smoother neck-to-grip transition and other visual details distinguished it from the minimalist prior handles.
›The Division accepted disclosure only for D1, D2 and D7, rejected the remaining prior-art evidence, and found the contested design created a different overall impression on the informed user.
›The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in the holder's current-proceeding costs.

Deciding panel

MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENÉ

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

08.06

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
000130884 vs Yigen Yang	2026-04-02	—	Art 25(1)(b)	08	7
000130703 vs Biwei Lin	2026-03-23	—	Art 25(1)(b)	08	7
000129381 vs EQUIPMOTOR LOCOMOTION DIRECT	2026-02-23	—	Art 25(1)(b)	08	7
000130727 vs Qiang Qian	2026-01-27	—	Art 25(1)(b)	08	7
000130282 vs Xiaodong SHAO	2025-12-19	—	Art 25(1)(b)	08	7
000126676 vs GH Holding Bjerre ApS	2025-09-10	—	Art 25(1)(b)	08	7
000125985 vs Best on Bolt GmbH	2025-05-28	—	Art 25(1)(b)	08	7
000125981 vs Best on Bolt GmbH	2025-02-24	—	Art 25(1)(b)	08	7