Invalidity · first instance · 2019-11-08
000106059
Contested design: 005942737-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay 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 005942737-0001 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
eDirekte 24 OÜ
EE
Akadeemia tee 20, 12611 Tallinn, Estonia
Represented by
Margus Sarap
Holder · RCD owner
Boatsauna OÜvia PDF extraction
EE
Kapteni, Abavere küla, 45206 Kadrina vald, Lääne-Viru maakond, Estonia
Represented by
Prior art cited (8)
sauna
RCD No 003141126-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-05-23
sauna
RCD No 003141126-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-05-23
boat-style sauna
Virumaa Teataja · disclosed 2016-07-27
boat sauna
local newspaper
boat sauna
www.boatsauna.com · Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2016-12-12
boat sauna
www.boatsauna.com · Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2016-12-12
boat sauna
www.ehitusmessid.ee/arhiiv/2016 · Ehitus ja sisustus 2017 trade fair leaflet
sauna
www.saunoa.fi · www.saunoa.fi · disclosed 2017-12-19
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant argued the contested sauna design was identical to its earlier RCDs D1 and D2 and to prior sauna disclosures D3 to D8 in newspapers, catalogues, trade-fair material and a website.
- ›Holder made no merits defence within the deadline and only claimed it had not received the complete invalidity application; the Office rejected that procedural complaint after technical checks.
- ›The Division held Article 25(1)(d) CDR did not apply because D1 and D2 were published before, not after, the contested filing date, and it accepted all invoked disclosures as evidence under Article 7 CDR.
- ›On novelty, the contested design differed materially, especially in the glazed wooden-framed door, handle, lock and side hooks, so none of D1 to D8 was identical and the application failed.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
- MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000109481 vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd | 2020-12-16 | Invalidity application rejected | — | 23 | 6 |
| 000109541 vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd | 2020-12-16 | Invalidity application rejected | — | 23 | 6 |
| 000109521 vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd | 2020-12-16 | Invalidity application rejected | — | 23 | 6 |
| 000109561 vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd | 2020-12-16 | Invalidity application rejected | — | 23 | 6 |
| 000109402 vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd | 2020-12-16 | Invalidity application rejected | — | 23 | 6 |
| 000109461 vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd | 2020-12-16 | Invalidity application rejected | — | 23 | 6 |
| 000105159 vs Ningbo Ontime Imp.&Exp.Co.,Ltd | 2019-12-12 | Invalidity application rejected | — | 23 | 6 |
| 000107040 vs Shenzhen Walikexun Information Technology Co., Ltd. | 2019-11-06 | Invalidity application rejected | — | 23 | 6 |