DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002733683-0005

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-07-05

000101520

Contested design: 002733683-0005

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity against Registered Community Design No. 002733683-0005 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. 002733683-0005 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

Sofagarnitur

40 2015 200490-0002 · DPMA register · disclosed 2015-04-02

International designD2

international registration design for a sofa set design designating the European Union

DM/087 843-0001 · Hague Express · disclosed 2015-10-30

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity based on D1 and D2, alleging the contested sofa design lacked novelty and individual character and conflicted with earlier design rights.
  • The holder argued the application was unfounded, submitted that D1 and D2 were evidently the same design, and maintained the contested design created a completely different overall impression.
  • The Division treated D1 and D2 as the same earlier design, accepted D1 as disclosed before the contested filing date, and compared the sofa sets from the perspective of the informed user with broad design freedom.
  • It found multiple visible differences in the armrests, seat structure, chaise longue and segmented backrest, so the contested design had individual character, was not identical, and did not conflict under Article 25(1)(d).
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's costs of EUR 400.

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
000101480

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