DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007042114-0001

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

R1277/2023-3

Contested design: 007042114-0001

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

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

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Brabantia Nederland B.V.via PDF extraction

Netherlands (NL)

Leenderweg 182, 5555 CJ Valkenswaard, Netherlands

Represented by

Nlo Shieldmark B.V.

Holder · RCD owner

Guangzhou Homfel Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

Rm.1210, Building A3, POLY TAL TO WUN, 290 Hanxi Avenue East, Panyu District, 511495 Guangzhou, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCD

dustbin

RCD No 4 422 061-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-10-31

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that the dustbin design lacked novelty and individual character over earlier dustbin designs, especially RCD No 4 422 061-0001.
  • The design holder disputed disclosure, invoked sector saturation and technical constraints, and said pedal and lid differences changed the overall impression.
  • The Board held the prior RCD was duly disclosed, designer freedom remained broad, and the shared rectangular bin, lid, and pedal dominated over minor differences.
  • The appeal was dismissed and the invalidation for lack of individual character was upheld.

Deciding panel

  • ChairS. Stürmann
  • RapporteurE. Fink
  • MemberC. Negro
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

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