DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000227327-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2026-05-08

000129421

Contested design: 000227327-0001

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen EU-Geschmacksmusters Nr. 000227327-0001 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Der Antragsteller trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Robert Büttnervia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Sonneberg, Deutschland

Holder · RCD owner

Brain Flash-Patententwicklungs GmbH

Austria (AT)

Lienz, Österreich

Prior art cited (2)

Patent⚠ rejected as evidence

European patent figures cited to argue the contested filter design is technically dictated.

EP 1 492 609 B1 · European patent

Patent⚠ rejected as evidence

Additional European patent figures cited for the technical-function objection.

EP 3 129 122 B1 · European patent

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 6(1)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity under Article 25(1)(b), arguing the filter design lacked individual character because its visible features were entirely technically dictated.
  • To support that position, the applicant relied on the holder's European patent documents and figures said to show the same technically necessary filter structure.
  • The holder replied that the request was insufficiently substantiated in part and that the front grid and opening pattern reflected multiple design choices rather than purely technical necessity.
  • The Invalidity Division found the cited patent material did not prove that all features were solely dictated by technical function and that the contested design created a different overall impression, so the request was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberIvan PRANDZHEV
  • MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK
  • MemberIvo TSENKOV

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

15.09

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129441

vs Brain Flash-Patententwicklungs GmbH

2026-05-08Art 25(1)(b)157
000129368

vs Brain Flash-Patententwicklungs GmbH

2026-05-06Art 25(1)(b)157
000125796

vs Jiangxi Huawu Brake Co., Ltd.

2024-11-26Art 25(1)(b)157
000125799

vs Jiangxi Huawu Brake Co., Ltd.

2024-11-26Art 25(1)(b)157
000125777

vs Jiangxi Huawu Brake Co., Ltd.

2024-11-26Art 25(1)(b)157
000125735

vs Jiangxi Huawu Brake Co., Ltd.

2024-11-26Art 25(1)(b)157
000121425

vs Guido Valentini

2023-12-22Art 25(1)(b)157
000114111

vs MASCHIO GASPARDO S.p.A.

2022-01-04Art 25(1)(b)157