DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001615824-0008

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-04-19

000010293

Contested design: 001615824-0008

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected and the applicant must pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(fr)

La demande en nullité à l'encontre du dessin ou modèle communautaire enregistré nº 001615824-0008 est rejetée. La demanderesse supporte les frais exposés par la titulaire, fixés à 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

HOLZWERKE LADENBURGER GMBH & CO. KG

Germany (DE)

Freie Flur 3 / Am Bahnhof, 04643 Geithain, Allemagne

Holder · RCD owner

SIMONINvia PDF extraction

France (FR)

Rue des Epinottes, 25500 Montlebon, France

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureAnnexes 2-5

Umweltbundesamt building facade in Dessau

www.sauerbruchhutton.de · Sauerbruch Hutton website

Web disclosureAnnex 7

Kindertagesstätte facade in Dresde

www.noack-architektur.de/projekte/oeffentb/01%20friedrichstr./10.htm · Noack Architektur website

Web disclosureAnnex 8

Kindertagesstätte facade in Cossebaude

www.noack-architektur.de/projekte/oeffentb/03%20Cossebaude/03.htm · Noack Architektur website

Web disclosureAnnex 10

Landtag Sachsen wooden slat panel

https://www.landtag.sachsen.de/de/landtag/landtagsgebaeude/projekt-landtag-216.cshtml · Landtag Sachsen website

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the registered views were inconsistent and that earlier building facades with parallel wooden slats destroyed novelty and individual character.
  • Holder argued the application was still too close to an earlier failed nullity action, the registered views were coherent, and the submitted facade photos were too unclear to prove the alleged prior designs.
  • The Division found the action admissible, accepted some web-based facade disclosures, but considered the earlier structures indistinct or materially different from the registered panel arrangement.
  • The prior designs did not create the same overall impression, so the invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to bear costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberJessica LEWIS
  • MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

25.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000105879

vs Bernhard Hirsch

2020-02-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000104699

vs DACHPOL Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością

2020-01-30Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000104079

vs SUZHOU 3DS ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., Ltd.

2019-12-12Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000104060

vs SUZHOU 3DS ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., Ltd.

2019-12-12Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000104059

vs SUZHOU 3DS ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., Ltd.

2019-12-12Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000106301

vs Sports Partner

2019-09-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000106281

vs Sports Partner

2019-09-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000106280

vs Sports Partner

2019-09-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258