Invalidity · first instance · 2019-02-12
000011025
Contested design: 004419430-0002
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0044194300002 is rejected, and the applicant is ordered to bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
1. Se deniega la solicitud de declaración de nulidad del dibujo o modelo comunitario registrado nº 0044194300002. 2. Se condena al solicitante a que sufrague las costas del titular, fijadas en 400 EUR.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Kika Group Ltd.via PDF extraction
Bulgaria (BG)
Vasil Levski str. 121, 4000 Plovdiv, Bulgaria
Represented by
Atanas Kostov
Holder · RCD owner
baby essentials
Spain (ES)
Avda. Corts Valencianas, 35-3, 12600 La Vall d'Uixó, España
Represented by
Prior art cited (7)
webpage showing the child strollers 'Divaina – Seat Carrycot' and 'Divaina – Transformable Seat'
kikkaboo.com/en/products/combined-strollers · kikkaboo.com · disclosed 2017-11-27
undated catalog extract showing a foldable child stroller model
St368
Intertek test report for child strollers referring to product reference St368 and LONG FAITH INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.
SZHH01000938S1 · Intertek, China · disclosed 2016-02-02
shipment certificate for 405 child strollers from China to KNORR BABY GmbH in Germany
KN161028 · shipment from China to Germany · disclosed 2017-03-28
Pantainer Express Line shipment certificate for 410 boxes referring to invoice KN161028
KN161028 · Pantainer Express Line
undated images allegedly showing foldable child strollers at the Germany Kind + Jugend fair
Kind + Jugend fair
undated images of the 'Divaina Grey' child stroller
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, alleging the contested child stroller copied an earlier LONG FAITH model distributed in Bulgaria, Germany and Spain and first shown at Kind + Jugend in 2015.
- ›Holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
- ›The Division found the annexes did not prove prior disclosure under Article 7 because they were post-dated, undated, lacked reliable source information, or described products without clearly establishing the protected appearance.
- ›The evidence was insufficient to show the contested design lacked novelty or individual character, so the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER
- MemberÁlvaro SESMA MERINO
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esSpanish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000107779 vs ANJI WEIYU FURNITURE CO., LTD. | 2020-04-03 | Invalidity application rejected | — | 06 | 6 |
| 000105800 vs Next Retail Limited | 2020-04-02 | Invalidity application rejected | — | 06 | 6 |
| 000108465 vs Chuntao XIANG | 2020-02-21 | Invalidity application rejected | — | 06 | 6 |
| 000105499 vs FI.MA di Masini e Figli S.r.l. | 2020-02-07 | Invalidity application rejected | — | 06 | 6 |
| 000108302 vs INTER LINK SAS | 2020-01-20 | Invalidity application rejected | — | 06 | 6 |
| 000101539 vs Soma Group d.o.o. | 2019-07-05 | Invalidity application rejected | — | 06 | 6 |
| 000101480 vs Soma Group d.o.o. | 2019-07-05 | Invalidity application rejected | — | 06 | 6 |
| 000101520 vs Soma Group d.o.o. | 2019-07-05 | Invalidity application rejected | — | 06 | 6 |