DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002722124-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-04-27

000010729

Contested design: 002722124-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 002722124-0002 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Magdalena Puszman-Kornak

Poland (PL)

Oleśnicka, nr 2A, 56-500 Syców, Poland

Represented by

Kancelaria Patentowa 'Rejman' S.C.

Joanna Ślęczka

Holder · RCD owner

'KASPRZAK' T. J, Kasprzakvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Dworcowa 3/43, 30-559 Kraków, Poland

Represented by

Amag Kancelaria Patentowa

Alina Magońska

Prior art cited (3)

Prior use⚠ rejected as evidence

BIKI Retro sofa allegedly exhibited at the Bad Salzuflen international trade fair

Bad Salzuflen international trade fair

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

BIKI Retro sofa shown on the producer's Facebook page

www.facebook.com/modALTO · Facebook · disclosed 2014-09-04

Prior use⚠ rejected as evidence

BIKI Retro sofa allegedly exhibited at Meble Polska 2015 in Poznań

Meble Polska trade fair, Poznań · disclosed 2015-02-17

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested sofa lacked novelty and individual character because the 'BIKI Retro' sofa had been disclosed before filing at the Bad Salzuflen trade fair, on Facebook, and at Meble Polska 2015 in Poznań.
  • The holder replied that the evidence mixed different sofa designs, that a single Facebook post would not reasonably become known to specialised circles, and that any trade-fair disclosure of BIKI Retro had not been proved.
  • The Division held that Facebook posts alone were insufficient without reliable corroboration, the Bad Salzuflen allegation was unsupported, and the Poznań blog and exhibitor-catalogue evidence did not show the specific BIKI Retro design.
  • Because prior disclosure under Article 7 CDR was not proved, the Division did not assess novelty or individual character further and rejected the invalidity application with costs against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberLudmila ČELISOVA
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload 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