DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002643726-0006

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-04-05

000010170

Contested design: 002643726-0006

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's fixed costs of EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design 002643726-0006 is declared invalid. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

UAB 'Eko trade'via PDF extraction

LT

Vinčų street 16-28, 46296 Kaunas, Lithuania

Holder · RCD owner

Tuindeco International B.V.

Netherlands (NL)

Krimweg 34, 7741 KJ Coevorden, Netherlands

Represented by

Advokato Roko Rudzinsko kontora

Rokas Rudzinskas

Prior art cited (5)

Catalog

huts / log cabins shown in Tuindeco catalogue

Tuindeco CATALOGUS 2005 (pp. 40, 44, 45) · Tuindeco

Catalog

huts / log cabins including the 'INGMAR 40.0600' hut

Tuindeco CATALOGUS 2006 (pp. 42, 43, 49, 55) · Tuindeco

Catalog

huts / log cabins shown in Tuindeco catalogue

Tuindeco CATALOGUS 2007 (pp. 51, 58) · Tuindeco

Web disclosure

holder's huts / log cabins shown on website printouts with pre-filing user reviews

http://www.tuin.co.uk · tuin.co.uk

Registered RCD

similar hut

RCD No 000696216-0002 · EUIPO

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5Article 6(1)(b)Article 7

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on earlier Tuindeco catalogues, website disclosures and prior RCD No 000696216-0002.
  • Holder argued its log-cabin style had evolved distinctly, claimed technical constraints limited design freedom, and submitted market and survey material to show a crowded sector.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of the 2006 Tuindeco catalogue prior design, found novelty preserved by visible differences, but held those differences insufficient to change the overall impression.
  • Given substantial designer freedom for huts and log cabins, the contested design lacked individual character and was declared invalid; the holder was ordered to pay costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

25.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129804

vs Mirosław Mytnik StudioDelta.pl

2026-05-06REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000129781

vs SHANGHAI KENDA INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.

2026-02-09REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000126955

vs Decora S.A.

2026-01-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000129761

vs Shanghai Kenda Industrial Co.,Ltd.

2025-11-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000127177

vs Hermanus Johannes Matheus Verdegaal

2025-10-14REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000129361

vs Xiaoxia LI

2025-10-09REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000129266

vs Taiyuan Jiuchangsheng Trading Co., Ltd.

2025-10-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000124780

vs D.ELLINAS FACTORY PRODUCTS LTD

2025-06-25REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258