DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000262142-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-04-19

000010340

Contested design: 000262142-0002

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 000262142-0002 est rejetée. La demanderesse supporte les frais exposés par le titulaire, fixés à 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Brymoor Enterprises Limited

United Kingdom (GB)

7 Withfield Drive, Milnrow, Rochdale, Lancashire OL16 4BP, Royaume Uni

Represented by

Mathys & Sqyuire LLP

Holder · RCD owner

Philippe Teurlingsvia PDF extraction

Belgium (BE)

Rue des Ourdons 10, 1457 Tourinnes-Saint-Lambert

Represented by

IP Innovations sprl

Donnatienne Croonenberghs

Prior art cited (6)

National designD1

a beanbag chair

No 3015330 · United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office · disclosed 2003-11-25

National designD2

bean bag

No 2076449 · United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office · disclosed 1998-07-29

Registered RCDD3

balles lestées

RCD No 000055595-0004 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2003-11-11

Registered RCDD4

balles lestées

RCD No 000055595-0007 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2003-11-11

National designD5

the cinnamon pod – bean bag version

No 3012566 · United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office · disclosed 2003-05-03

National designD6

furniture bag version

No 2086619 · United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office · disclosed 1999-03-30

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the beanbag-style seat lacked individual character because many similar child-seat designs were already on the market before filing.
  • Holder relied on important differences in overall form and proportions and also referred to prior Belgian litigation that had upheld the contested design.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of prior designs D1 to D6 but found none identical and considered the contested pouf more stripped-down, with straighter edges and a broader seating area that gave a distinct overall impression.
  • The contested RCD retained individual character, 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

06.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000107779

vs ANJI WEIYU FURNITURE CO., LTD.

2020-04-03Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)068
000105800

vs Next Retail Limited

2020-04-02Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)068
000108302

vs INTER LINK SAS

2020-01-20Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)068
000101539

vs Soma Group d.o.o.

2019-07-05Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)068
000101480

vs Soma Group d.o.o.

2019-07-05Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)068
000101520

vs Soma Group d.o.o.

2019-07-05Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)068
000102339

vs Syzan Sp. z o.o.

2019-04-25Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)068
000102859

vs Syzan Sp. z o.o.

2019-04-25Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)068