DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002275230-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-06-25

000103219

Contested design: 002275230-0001

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 002275230-0001 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

BVG Group Ltd

United Kingdom (GB)

Units 5 & 6, Industrial Estate, Brecon, Powys, LD3 8LA, United Kingdom

Represented by

Richard R. Halstead & Co. Ltd

Richard Ralph Halstead

Holder · RCD owner

Forest Garden Limited

United Kingdom (GB)

Units 291 & 296, Hartlebury Trading Estate, Hartlebury, Worcestershire, DY10 4JB, United Kingdom

Represented by

Potter Clarkson LLP

Prior art cited (4)

PublicationD1⚠ rejected as evidence

copy of a page from a book

book

Prior useD2⚠ rejected as evidence

photograph of a product referred to as 'Mercia tall greenhouse 2010'

Prior useD3⚠ rejected as evidence

photograph referred to as 'The shop - bought 4-door set circa 1999'

Prior useD4⚠ rejected as evidence

photograph referred to as '2-DOOR GEORGIAN DOORSET (CIRCA 1999)'

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6Article 7Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant claimed the contested greenhouse design lacked novelty and individual character over four earlier designs and that its features were solely dictated by technical function.
  • The holder argued the cited prior designs were not properly disclosed, the contested RCD remained new and individually characterful, and its features were not chosen solely for technical reasons.
  • The Division found the applicant had not proven that all essential features were solely technically dictated and had not provided solid, objective evidence of prior disclosure for D1 to D4.
  • The invalidity grounds under Articles 5, 6, and 8(1) failed, so the application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG

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

25.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000105879

vs Bernhard Hirsch

2020-02-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000104699

vs DACHPOL Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością

2020-01-30Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000104079

vs SUZHOU 3DS ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., Ltd.

2019-12-12Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000104060

vs SUZHOU 3DS ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., Ltd.

2019-12-12Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000104059

vs SUZHOU 3DS ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., Ltd.

2019-12-12Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000106301

vs Sports Partner

2019-09-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000106281

vs Sports Partner

2019-09-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000106280

vs Sports Partner

2019-09-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258