DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002733683-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-07-05

000101480

Contested design: 002733683-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 002733683-0001 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

PMR Handelsgesellschaft mbH

Germany (DE)

Fennstr. 1, 12439 Berlin, Deutschland

Represented by

Kanzlei Plüschke

Michael Plüschke

Holder · RCD owner

Soma Group d.o.o.

RS

Terazije 42, 11000 Beograd, Serbien

Represented by

Eikel & Partner

Prior art cited (2)

National designD1

Schlafsofas, Sofagarnituren, Sofas

German design No. 40 2014 203520-0001 · DPMA register · disclosed 2015-02-06

International designD2

sofa set

International registration No. D087019-0001 · Hague Express · disclosed 2015-08-07

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant relied on German design D1 and international design D2, arguing the contested sofa design lacked novelty and individual character and conflicted with an earlier protected design.
  • The holder said D1 and D2 were effectively the same prior design and that the contested design created a clearly different overall impression.
  • The Division treated D1 and D2 as the same earlier design, found D1 had been disclosed before the contested filing date, and compared the designs from the perspective of the informed user of sofa sets.
  • It found multiple visible differences in the armrests, base structure, seat surfaces, and backrest segmentation, so the contested design had individual character and was not identical to the earlier design.
  • The invalidity grounds under Articles 25(1)(b) and 25(1)(d) failed, the application was rejected, and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

06.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000101539

vs Soma Group d.o.o.

2019-07-05Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)0610
000101520

vs Soma Group d.o.o.

2019-07-05Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)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
000102339

vs Syzan Sp. z o.o.

2019-04-25Invalidity 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