DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004060838-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-04-25

000102339

Contested design: 004060838-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected in its entirety.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 004060838-0001 is rejected.

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, Czech Republic

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant claimed the contested furniture-set design lacked novelty and individual character over four earlier RCDs for fire pits and also invoked Article 25(1)(e) CDR based on those same earlier designs.
  • The holder replied that the contested product had to be assessed as a whole and was not comparable to isolated bowls from the prior registrations.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of D1 to D4 but found material differences in the bowl and, above all, in the contested design’s additional furniture elements, so neither novelty nor individual character was destroyed.
  • The Article 25(1)(e) ground was inadmissible because prior RCDs are not distinctive signs, and the application was rejected in full.

Deciding panel

  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberGailé SAKALAITÉ
  • MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
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
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
000102859

vs Syzan Sp. z o.o.

2019-04-25Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)068
000010933

vs Fatboy the Original B.V.

2019-02-20Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)068