DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003797257-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-11-29

000010854

Contested design: 003797257-0001

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 003797257-0001 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

Fatboy the Original B.V.

Netherlands (NL)

De Steenbok 19-21, 5215 MG ’s-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands

Holder · RCD owner

Ningbo Beidou Outdoor Products Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

Yangjia Village, Jishigang Town, Yinzhou District, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province, 315171, People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Jannig & Repkow

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCD

LAMZAC chaise longue

RCD No 002621904-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-02-03

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 25(1)(a)Article 3(a)

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over its earlier LAMZAC RCD and also argued the contested filing showed multiple products rather than one design.
  • Holder argued the contested RCD had visible shape and feature differences, designer freedom was functionally constrained, and the blue sheet merely showed alternative positions of the same product.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of the earlier RCD publication but rejected the internet extracts as insufficient evidence and found the prior design was not identical to the contested RCD.
  • It held the differing headrest shape, flatter top, contrasting blue area, and attached features created a different overall impression and that the representations still showed one unitary design.
  • All pleaded invalidity grounds were rejected, so the application failed and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

06.0106.02

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
000105499

vs FI.MA di Masini e Figli S.r.l.

2020-02-07Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(a)068
000108302

vs INTER LINK SAS

2020-01-20Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)068
000101520

vs Soma Group d.o.o.

2019-07-05Invalidity 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
000102339

vs Syzan Sp. z o.o.

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