Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-03-06
R0322/2019-3
Contested design: 003148808-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, the contested RCD remains invalid for lack of individual character, and the design holder is ordered to pay EUR 1 250 in costs to the invalidity applicant.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings; 3. Fixes the costs to be paid by the design holder to the invalidity applicant for the invalidity and the appeal proceedings at EUR 1 250.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €1,250
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Inter IKEA Systems B.V.via PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
Olof Palmestraat 1, 2616 LN Delft, The Netherlands
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
PROSPERPLAST 1via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Wilkowska 968, 43-378 Rybarzowice, Poland
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
IKEA 'SKURAR' flowerpot (circular shape with scalloped upper edge and lace embroidery)
IKEA catalogues 2011 and 2012 (US, Polish, German, Swedish versions) · disclosed 2011-01-01
IKEA 'SKURAR' flowerpot offered on Amazon.co.uk, first available 17 October 2015
ASIN B0168OAP1A · Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2015-10-17
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder (PROSPERPLAST 1, appellant) argued that saturation of the flowerpot market — caused by IKEA itself marketing multiple lace-embroidery flowerpots — narrowed the designer's freedom and made the informed user more sensitive to differences; it also argued that the lace trend reduced the weight of shared design elements.
- ›The invalidity applicant (IKEA) sought to cross-appeal the first-instance finding of novelty, arguing the designs are identical; it maintained the designer's freedom for flowerpots is very wide and that minor lace-pattern differences do not create a different overall impression.
- ›The Board dismissed the cross-appeal as inadmissible (IKEA was not adversely affected by the contested decision and did not comply with the formal cross-appeal requirements). It found the designer's freedom for flowerpots is very wide and that a general design trend does not restrict designer freedom. The evidence of saturation was insufficient: images were undated, four IKEA flowerpots are too few, and lace articles in clothing are irrelevant to the flowerpot sector.
- ›The Board confirmed that the conflicting designs produce the same overall impression (circular pot, scalloped edge, similar lace embroidery, same proportions) and that the minor differences in lace detail are insufficient to create individual character; the appeal was dismissed.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- MemberH. Salmi
- MemberG. Humphreys
- Registrarp.o. R. Vidal
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 ↗ |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0323/2019-3 | 2020-03-06 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 35(1) | — | 7 |
| R0181/2025-3 | 2025-05-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0827/2024-3 | 2025-03-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1336/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0797/2024-3 | 2025-01-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1123/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1125/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1124/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |