Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-03-06
R0323/2019-3
Contested design: 003148808-0002
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 (rectangular shape with scalloped upper edge and lace embroidery)
IKEA brochure (Swedish version) 2013, page 13 · disclosed 2013-01-01
IKEA 'SKURAR' flowerpot offered on Amazon.co.uk, first available 1 December 2015
ASIN B0168WQK8Y · Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2015-12-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder (PROSPERPLAST 1, appellant) argued that saturation of the flowerpot market caused by IKEA marketing multiple lace-embroidery flowerpots narrowed the designer's freedom and made the informed user more attentive to differences, and that the lace trend reduced the significance of shared features.
- ›The invalidity applicant (IKEA) sought to cross-appeal the novelty finding and maintained the contested RCD (rectangular flowerpot with lace) produces the same overall impression as the earlier SKURAR design; it argued the designer's freedom is very wide.
- ›The Board dismissed the cross-appeal as inadmissible. It found the designer's freedom for flowerpots is very wide; a general design trend cannot restrict it. The saturation evidence was insufficient (undated images, only four IKEA flowerpots, clothing-sector lace articles irrelevant to flowerpots). The contested RCD and the prior designs share the same rectangular shape with scalloped edge, similar symmetrical lace embroidery, two rows of holes, and the same proportions.
- ›Differences in lace detail, length and top/bottom views do not alter the same overall impression. The contested RCD lacks 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0322/2019-3 | 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 |