DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004383495-0007

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-04-06

000105841

Contested design: 004383495-0007

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's fixed costs of EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0043834950007 is rejected. 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

Conran sofa 1 (grey sofa)

http://www.retrotogo.com/2017/04/content-by-terence-conran-retro-style-marlowe-sofa.html · retrotogo.com

Web disclosureAnnex A

Conran sofa 2 (orange sofa)

http://www.retrotogo.com/2017/04/content-by-terence-conran-retro-style-marlowe-sofa.html · retrotogo.com; Homes & Interiors Scotland · disclosed 2017-04-17

Web disclosureAnnex B⚠ rejected as evidence

Coushto sofa

https://www.superestudio.co.uk/3-coushto · superestudio.co.uk; Instagram · disclosed 2017-06-15

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character over the earlier Conran sofa and Coushto sofa disclosures.
  • The holder disputed disclosure of all cited designs and argued the contested sofa retained individual character within a crowded prior-art field.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of the two Conran sofa versions, rejected Coushto as insufficiently proven, and treated sofa design freedom as broad despite a crowded corpus.
  • Because the contested design created a different overall impression on the informed user, the invalidity application was rejected.

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