DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005490596-0003

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-12-01

R0436/2023-3

Contested design: 005490596-0003

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant’s costs and fees in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Inhaberin des Geschmacksmusters trägt die Kosten und Gebühren der Nichtigkeitsantragstellerin im Nichtigkeits- und Beschwerdeverfahren.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

WMK Trading GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Waltrup 16, 48341 Altenberge, Deutschland

Represented by

Kathrin Herking

Holder · RCD owner

EveMotion GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Marzahner Chaussee 213, 12681 Berlin, Deutschland

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosureD2

pavilion

ASIN B01N35FCC · amazon.de · disclosed 2016-03-07

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The design holder argued that integrated LED light points in the roof structure, a crowded design corpus and limited design freedom gave the contested pavilion a different overall impression from D2.
  • The invalidity applicant replied that the late saturation evidence was irrelevant and that the added light chain did not materially change the overall appearance of the pavilion.
  • The Board confirmed disclosure of D2 on amazon.de, rejected the alleged saturation evidence, and held that the common six-leg structure, curtains and two-tier roof dominated the overall impression.
  • It found the extra light chain and minor roof-bracing differences insufficient to establish individual character, so the appeal was dismissed.

Deciding panel

  • ChairS. Stürmann
  • RapporteurC. Bartos
  • MemberE. Fink
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

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

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0181/2025-32025-05-27Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0827/2024-32025-03-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1336/2024-32025-03-03Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0797/2024-32025-01-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1124/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1123/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1125/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1015/2024-32024-11-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5