DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006857819-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2025-08-22

R2089/2024-3

Contested design: 006857819-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

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

Show verbatim operative text(de)

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

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Lidl Österreich GmbHvia PDF extraction

Austria (AT)

Unter der Leiten 11, 5020 Salzburg, Österreich

Holder · RCD owner

Gusta Garden GmbHvia PDF extraction

Austria (AT)

Eschenweg 16, 9551 Bodensdorf, Österreich

Prior art cited (19)

Prior useD1⚠ rejected as evidence

Image of a Romberg potato tower shown on a display at Lidl's April 2019 sampling event.

Lidl Ausmusterung April 2019

Web disclosureD2⚠ rejected as evidence

Plant tower image allegedly published online before 14 March 2017.

discounto.de / Bing image search for 4311536131882 · discounto.de / Microsoft Bing · disclosed 2017-03-14

Web disclosureD3

Paul Potato Starter plant tower offered by the holder.

Amazon listing for 'Paul Potato Starter' · Amazon.de · disclosed 2018-04-15

Registered RCDD4

Behälter für Lebensmittel

RCD No 295803-0003 · EUIPO eSearch plus · disclosed 2005-02-14

Registered RCDD5

Behälter für Lebensmittel

RCD No 295803-0004 · EUIPO eSearch plus · disclosed 2005-02-14

National designD6

Dreiecksbehälter mit konischen Sicken

DE Design No M9207757-0001 · DPMA · disclosed 1992-12-09

National designD7

Übertöpfe

DE Design No 402014000199-0001 · DPMA · disclosed 2014-11-12

Registered RCDD8

Übertöpfe

RCD No 726039-0001 · EUIPO eSearch plus · disclosed 2007-05-16

Registered RCDD9

Übertöpfe

RCD No 726039-0002 · EUIPO eSearch plus · disclosed 2007-05-16

Registered RCDD10

Topfhalter

RCD No 604491-0001 · EUIPO eSearch plus · disclosed 2006-10-16

Registered RCDD11

Übertöpfe

RCD No 1910928-0001 · EUIPO eSearch plus · disclosed 2011-09-01

International designD12

Plant pots

International Design No WO D078049-010 · WIPO Global Design Database · disclosed 2012-08-24

National designD13

Übertöpfe

DE Design No 402014000199-0001 · DPMA · disclosed 2014-11-12

National designD14

Einwegbehältnis

DE Design No 40005648-0001 · DPMA · disclosed 2000-07-26

National designD15

Verpackungen (Dosen)

DE Design No 40300569-0012 · DPMA · disclosed 2003-10-01

International designD16

Recipient pour nourriture et fourrage

International Design No WO D023177-0001 · WIPO Global Design Database · disclosed 1992-08-31

International designD17

Emballage pour produits alimentaires pour animaux

International Design No WO D017610-0001 · WIPO Global Design Database · disclosed 1990-11-30

Web disclosureD18

Keter stackable flower-pot plant tower.

Amazon listing for 'Keter 17197973 Ivy Planter Set of 3 Stackable Flower Pots in Plastic' · Amazon

Web disclosureD19⚠ rejected as evidence

UPP plant tower shown in Google and upp-shop.de screenshots.

UPP Pflanzturm 3er Set Stapelbar Anthrazit · Google search / www.upp-shop.de

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 8(1)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 5(1)(b)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued technical functionality and lack of novelty and individual character based on D1-D19, especially D1, D2, D3 and D4.
  • The holder denied that D1 and D2 proved prior disclosure, defended the design's aesthetic choices, and maintained that the cited earlier designs created different overall impressions.
  • The Board held the applicant had not proved D1 or D2 disclosure, accepted D3, D4-D12 and D14-D18 as disclosed, and found Article 8(1) unsupported because the applicant proved no exclusively technical design choices.
  • The Board found the contested design remained new and possessed individual character over the cited prior art, so the appeal failed and costs were awarded against the invalidity applicant.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
  • RapporteurE. Fink
  • MemberA. Pohlmann
  • RegistrarK. Zajfert

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
R2328/2024-32025-08-22Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)9
R1394/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R1395/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R1826/2025-32026-04-22Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R0947/2025-32026-04-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R0204/2024-32025-06-04Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7
R2322/2024-32025-05-21Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R0029/2018-32024-09-09Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1)7