DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005253069-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-12-12

000104059

Contested design: 005253069-0003

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 005253069-0003 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

Framery Oy

Finland (FI)

Patamäenkatu 7, 33900 Tampere, Finland

Represented by

Berggren Oy

Holder · RCD owner

Suzhou 3DS Engineering Procurement Construction Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

Taiping Industrial Park, Xiangcheng District, Suzhou 215131, People’s Republic of China

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCD

telephone boxes

Community design registration No 002393793-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-01-30

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character, arguing the contested booth reproduced the earlier design’s key features and overall dimensions.
  • Holder filed no observations in reply.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of the earlier RCD but found the shared glazed box form banal in the sector and focused on differing door, frame and roof features.
  • Because those differences changed the overall impression on the informed user, the contested RCD retained individual character and the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI

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

25.03

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
000106280

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
000106300

vs Sports Partner

2019-09-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000106301

vs Sports Partner

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