DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004060838-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-02-06

000102340

Contested design: 004060838-0002

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 004060838-0002 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

Vulcanus design s.r.o.via PDF extraction

Czechia (CZ)

Lazecká 344/4a, Lazce, 779 00 Olomouc, Czechia

Represented by

Petr Soukup

Holder · RCD owner

Syzan Sp. z o.o.

Poland (PL)

ul. Krzemieniecka 2, Łódź, Poland

Represented by

Biuro Usług Patentowych Jan Szuta

Jan Szuta

Prior art cited (4)

Registered RCDD1

fire pit

RCD No 003793041-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-03-22

Registered RCDD2

fire pit

RCD No 003793041-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-03-22

Registered RCDD3

fire pit

RCD No 003793041-0003 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-03-22

Registered RCDD4

fire pit

RCD No 003793041-0004 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-03-22

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over four earlier RCDs and also invoked Article 25(1)(e) based on its own earlier designs.
  • The holder filed observations after the deadline, and the Division did not take them into account.
  • The Division accepted D1 to D4 as disclosed earlier designs but found no identical design and a different overall impression because the contested design combined a bowl with three bases.
  • The Article 25(1)(e) ground was inadmissible because earlier RCDs are not earlier distinctive signs; the application was rejected in full.

Deciding panel

  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberGailé SAKALAITÉ
  • MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

06.05

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000102859

vs Syzan Sp. z o.o.

2019-04-25Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)0610
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
000101520

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
000101539

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