DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008803712-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-03-04

R0499/2023-3

Contested design: 008803712-0001

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

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

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Inhaberin trägt die Kosten der Antragstellerin im Nichtigkeits- und Beschwerdeverfahren.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Kontri Spółka z Ograniczoną Odpowiedzialnościąvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Jacka Kuronia 3, 15-569 Białystok, Polen

Represented by

Michał Jędrzejewski

Holder · RCD owner

LZQ Trading GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Charlottenstraße 61, 51149 Köln, Deutschland

Represented by

Yu Lin

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosureAnlage A 1

ANGELBLISS playpen shown on Amazon.de

ASIN B086LG837P · Amazon.de · disclosed 2020-07-17

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The design holder appealed only on disclosure, arguing that the earlier Amazon product identified by ASIN B086LG837P had not been proven to exist on the claimed publication date.
  • The invalidity applicant filed no reply on appeal and relied on the Amazon printout submitted in the invalidity proceedings.
  • The Board held that the Amazon.de screenshot, together with the ASIN, publication date and pre-filing customer reviews, was concrete and objective evidence that the earlier playpen design had been made available to the public before the contested filing date.
  • Because the finding of identical overall impression was not challenged and disclosure was proven, the appeal was dismissed and the invalidity decision stood.

Deciding panel

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

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)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
R2422/2022-32024-01-30Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R0856/2022-32023-06-30Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R1562/2022-32023-05-31Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R1103/2022-32023-02-15Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R0678/2021-32022-11-14Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R0676/2021-32022-11-14Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R0679/2021-32022-11-14Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5
R0682/2021-32022-11-14Decision confirmedArt 7(1)5