DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005185097-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-04-25

000102859

Contested design: 005185097-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application against registered Community design No 005185097-0001 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 005185097-0001 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

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 pits

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

Registered RCDD2

fire pits

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

Registered RCDD3

fire pits

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

Registered RCDD4

fire pits

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

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant claimed lack of novelty and individual character over four earlier RCDs for fire pits and also invoked Article 25(1)(e) based on its earlier designs.
  • The holder argued the bowl could not be isolated from the base because both were essential to the product, so the compared designs were not comparable.
  • The Division found the earlier designs were properly disclosed but differed from the contested design in the bowl and overall composition, so novelty and individual character were not defeated.
  • The Article 25(1)(e) limb was inadmissible because earlier RCDs are not distinctive signs; the application was rejected in full and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberGailé SAKALAITÉ
  • MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

06.0507.0223.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000102340

vs Syzan Sp. z o.o.

2019-02-06Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)0610
000120199

vs William Huang

2023-05-30Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)239
000128196

vs Rafał Sowa

2025-07-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)06, 238
000117089

vs Mit Feuer & Flamme OG

2022-12-01REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)07, 238
000114741

vs CERAMICA CIELO S.p.A.

2022-06-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)06, 238
000110670

vs NAXANI DESIGN, S.L.

2021-04-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)06, 238
000109461

vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd

2020-12-16Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)238
000109521

vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd

2020-12-16Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)238