DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015072930-0022

Invalidity · first instance · 2026-05-11

000129519

Contested design: 015072930-0022

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen EU-Geschmacksmusters Nr. 015072930-0022 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Spark Technologies, SIAvia PDF extraction

LV

Rīga, Lettland

Represented by

Kristine Viļķina

Holder · RCD owner

AST - Advanced Sailing Technologies GmbH

Germany (DE)

Potsdam, Deutschland

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosureD1

Screenshots from the video 'Aspen Carbon Cat Tour & Running Video' showing the asserted earlier boat design.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyWngk9BPps&t=217s · YouTube · disclosed 2022-10-07

Web disclosureD2⚠ rejected as evidence

Screenshot of a post dated 20/08/2024 by the account 'Oto Dzenis' showing the asserted earlier design.

disclosed 2024-08-20

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on two earlier online disclosures of a boat rub rail design.
  • The holder denied the invalidity grounds and argued the contested design differed in the number, width, angle, and layout of the rub-rail segments and interruptions.
  • The Division accepted D1 as an online disclosure under Article 7(1) but rejected D2 because the screenshot did not reliably identify its source or disclosure circumstances.
  • Comparing only the protected starboard-side rub-rail features, the Division found clear differences in form, proportions, and interruption layout, producing a different overall impression.
  • The contested design therefore had individual character and novelty; the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberIvo TSENKOV

Decision files

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

Locarno classes

12.06

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000122874

vs Great Wall Motor Company Limited

2026-05-29Art 25(1)(b)127
000129537

vs AST - Advanced Sailing Technologies GmbH

2026-05-11Art 25(1)(b)127
000124336

vs Radosław Pryba

2024-11-29Art 25(1)(b)127
000124339

vs Radosław Pryba

2024-11-29Art 25(1)(b)127
000126216

vs Yiwu Guanze Trading Co., Ltd.

2024-10-21Art 25(1)(b)127
000120438

vs CYBEX GmbH

2024-05-29Art 25(1)(b)127
000120399

vs CYBEX GmbH

2024-05-29Art 25(1)(b)127
000120874

vs José RODRIGUES DA COSTA

2023-12-07Art 25(1)(b)127