DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002745554-0002

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-08-30

R0837/2020-3

Contested design: 002745554-0002

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the design holder's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Dismisses the appeal. 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

ALBATROS International GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Konrad-Zuse-Str. 3, 54552 Nerdlen, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

Homy Casa Limitedvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

Second booth of No. 81, He'an Street, Xi'hua Road, Liwan District, GuangZhou, China

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureD1

chair shown in an Amazon Germany listing

amazon.de · disclosed 2012-10-16

Web disclosureAnnexes LHR 2 to LHR 9⚠ rejected as evidence

website extracts showing chairs

amazon.de; moemax.de; home24.de · Amazon Germany / moemax.de / home24.de

CatalogAnnexes LHR 11 to LHR 12⚠ rejected as evidence

catalogue images of chairs

catalogues

OtherAnnexes LHR 13 to LHR 20 and Annex LHR 24⚠ rejected as evidence

additional chair designs and supporting documents submitted late, including design drawings, sales documents, emails and book extracts

mixed

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5(1)(b)Article 5(2)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing D1 and later annexes showed the chair lacked novelty and individual character, and that D1 should also be assessed under Article 6 CDR.
  • The design holder said the Amazon listing for D1 was unreliable, the later annexes were inadmissible or unproven, and visible differences such as the ribbon, backrest and legs defeated invalidity.
  • After remittal from the General Court, the Board accepted D1 as disclosed under Article 7(1) CDR but held it had only been invoked for novelty; the other designs were undated, post-dated or late and could not support Article 6.
  • The Board found D1 not identical to the contested RCD because of the colourful edging, colour differences and missing side and rear views, so novelty remained and the appeal was dismissed with costs against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • ChairS. Stürmann
  • RapporteurS. Rizzo
  • MemberC. Negro
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
itItalianhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R2322/2024-32025-05-21Decision confirmedArt 6(1)(b), Art 28(1)(b), Art 7(1)7
R2349/2019-32020-09-30Decision confirmedArt 6(1)(b), Art 28(1)(b)7
R1577/2016-32018-06-01Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 6(1)(b), Art 28(1)(b)7
R2215/2016-32018-06-29Decision annulledArt 7(1), Art 6(1)(b)6
R2216/2016-32018-06-29Decision annulledArt 7(1), Art 6(1)(b)6
R0732/2024-32025-03-03Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R1845/2023-32024-12-09Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 28(1)(b)5
R2289/2023-32024-12-09Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 28(1)(b)5