DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004383495-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-04-06

000105840

Contested design: 004383495-0004

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

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0043834950004 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

Sourceable Limitedvia PDF extraction

United Kingdom (GB)

91-93 Great Eastern Street, City of London EC2A 3HZ, United Kingdom

Represented by

Gunnercooke llp

Holder · RCD owner

Made.com Design Limitedvia PDF extraction

United Kingdom (GB)

5 Singer Street, London EC2A 4BQ, United Kingdom

Represented by

BIRD & BIRD LLP

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosureAnnex A

Fitz chair

https://www.swooneditions.com/fitz-contemporary-cocktail-chair#!5595 · Swooneditions website / Wayback Machine / Instagram · disclosed 2016-08-20

Web disclosureAnnex B⚠ rejected as evidence

German chair 1

https://www.1stdibs.com/furniture/seating/armchairs/german-midcentury-baby-pink-velvet-club-armchairs-1960s/id-f_13196541/ · 1stdibs

Web disclosureAnnex C⚠ rejected as evidence

German chair 2

https://www.1stdibs.com/furniture/seating/armchairs/german-midcentury-yellow-velvet-club-armchair-1960s/id-f_10050771/ · 1stdibs

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character, relying on the earlier designs Fitz, German chair 1 and German chair 2.
  • The holder disputed disclosure of all three prior designs, argued the armchair design corpus was crowded, and maintained the contested RCD created a different overall impression.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of Fitz through the archived website and related online evidence, but found the two 1stdibs chairs insufficiently evidenced as prior disclosures.
  • Comparing the contested design only with Fitz, the Division found several significant visual differences that the informed user would notice, so the RCD retained individual character.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG

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

06.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000127357

vs ED-Lifestyle Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG

2025-02-13Art 25(1)(b)067
000127356

vs ED-Lifestyle Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG

2025-02-12Art 25(1)(b)067
000127340

vs ED-Lifestyle Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG

2025-02-06Art 25(1)(b)067
000121199

vs MANUTTI BVBA

2024-05-16Art 25(1)(b)067
000120920

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067
000120868

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067
000120869

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067
000120918

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067