DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002643726-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-04-05

000010174

Contested design: 002643726-0003

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

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

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design 002643726-0003 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

MB ‘AV Projektai’via PDF extraction

LT

J. Kubiliaus g. 18, 09108 Vilnius, 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 (3)

Catalog

hut / log cabin shown in Tuindeco Catalogue 2013

Log Cabin Daniel 40.0764 · Tuindeco Catalogue 2013

Web disclosure

printouts showing huts/log cabins offered by the holder, with user reviews dated before the contested RCD filing date

http://www.tuin.co.uk · tuin.co.uk

Registered RCD

similar hut / log cabin design registered before the contested RCD filing date

RCD No 000696216-0002 · EUIPO

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on Tuindeco catalogues, pre-filing website disclosures, and earlier RCD 000696216-0002 showing similar huts.
  • Holder argued its log-house designs were distinct, the sector was crowded, and technical and functional constraints limited designer freedom.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of the 2013 Tuindeco catalogue and found the prior and contested huts created the same overall impression despite visible differences.
  • The contested RCD lacked individual character under Article 6(1)(b) CDR, so the application was upheld and the holder was ordered to bear 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