DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003024371-0076

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-11-21

000104459

Contested design: 003024371-0076

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity of Registered Community design No 003024371-0076 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. 003024371-0076 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Der Antragsteller trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Tomasz Krywult

Poland (PL)

Żeromskiego 20a, 42-202 Częstochowa, Polen

Represented by

Marcin Mioduszewski

Holder · RCD owner

Eglo Leuchten GmbHvia PDF extraction

Austria (AT)

Heiligkreuz 22, 6136 Pill, Österreich

Represented by

Taylor Wessing

Prior art cited (11)

Web disclosureMuster Nr. 1

pendant lamp

https://pinterest.com/ · Pinterest · disclosed 2013-11-21

Web disclosureMuster Nr. 2⚠ rejected as evidence

pendant lamp

https://pinterest.com/ · Pinterest · disclosed 2014-11-25

Web disclosureMuster Nr. 3

pendant lamp

https://www.idlights.com/ · Idlights · disclosed 2015-10-10

Web disclosureMuster Nr. 4⚠ rejected as evidence

pendant lamp

https://pinterest.com/ · Pinterest · disclosed 2015-10-19

Web disclosureMuster Nr. 5⚠ rejected as evidence

pendant lamp

https://shopmakarios.com/ · shopmakarios.com · disclosed 2015-10-19

Web disclosureMuster Nr. 6⚠ rejected as evidence

pendant lamp

https://www.instagram.com/ · Instagram · disclosed 2015-12-18

Web disclosureMuster Nr. 7⚠ rejected as evidence

pendant lamp

https://www.instagram.com/ · Instagram · disclosed 2015-12-19

Web disclosureMuster Nr. 8⚠ rejected as evidence

pendant lamp

https://www.bokt.nl/ · bokt.nl forum · disclosed 2016-02-08

Web disclosureMuster Nr. 9⚠ rejected as evidence

pendant lamp

https://www.instagram.com/ · Instagram · disclosed 2016-02-19

Web disclosureMuster Nr. 10⚠ rejected as evidence

pendant lamp

https://pinterest.com/ · Pinterest · disclosed 2016-02-29

Web disclosureMuster Nr. 11⚠ rejected as evidence

pendant lamp

https://www.yelp.com · Yelp · disclosed 2016-03-14

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested lamp design lacked novelty and individual character over 11 earlier internet disclosures dating from 2013 to 2016.
  • The holder challenged the reliability and relevance of the web evidence and argued that the contested design created a different, more modern overall impression from the cited rustic lamps.
  • The Division accepted prior disclosure only for patterns 1 and 3, found the other web printouts inadequately dated or post-filing, and disregarded the late translation of the notarial deed.
  • Comparing the contested design with patterns 1 and 3, the Division found no identity and a different overall impression, so the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO

Decision files

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

Locarno classes

26.05

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000106699

vs Shenzhen Juku Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.

2020-05-19Invalidity application rejected266
000104419

vs Lukas Staffen

2019-11-04Invalidity application rejected266
000107620

vs DUOLLA s.c. Aleksandra PACHO, Aleksandra SOSNOWSKA-KRYWULT

2019-10-23Invalidity application rejected266
000102639

vs "Durable" Hunke & Jochheim GmbH & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft

2019-08-21Invalidity application rejected266
000102399

vs INTAV S.R.L.

2019-08-09Invalidity application rejected266
000101440

vs KARE Design GmbH

2019-07-09Invalidity application rejected266
000104899

vs Daxtor ApS

2019-05-22Invalidity application rejected266
000103059

vs ZHEJIANG CHINA-BEST IMPORT & EXPORT CO.,LTD

2019-05-20Invalidity application rejected266