Invalidity · first instance · 2020-06-30
000105419
Contested design: 001663766-0001
Outcome
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(it)
1. La domanda di dichiarazione di nullità del disegno/modello comunitario registrato n. 0016637660001 è respinta. 2. La richiedente sopporta l’onere delle spese sostenute dalla titolare, fissate a 400 EUR.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Turan Plastik San. Nak Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti.via PDF extraction
Türkiye (TR)
Arsin Organize Sanayi Bölgesi 4. Cadde No 5, 61900 Arsin, Turchia
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Curver Luxembourg Sarlvia PDF extraction
LU
Z.I. Haneboesch, 4562 Neidercorn, Lussemburgo
Represented by
Prior art cited (11)
basket
design registration No. 1991 00985-0001 · Danish design registration · disclosed 1992-11-20
basket
design registration No. 2002-000000118-0001 · Serbian design registration
basket
patent No. 5,356,024 · United States Patent and Trademark Office database · disclosed 1994-10-18
basket
design patent No. D520,750S · United States Patent and Trademark Office database · disclosed 2006-05-16
basket
design registration No. 3001130940000M01 · DesignView
basket
patent No. 5,242,074 · United States Patent and Trademark Office database · disclosed 1993-09-07
basket
patent No. 344,167 · United States Patent and Trademark Office database · disclosed 1994-02-08
basket
patent No. 5,535,914 · United States Patent and Trademark Office database · disclosed 1996-07-16
basket
design patent No. D457,280 S · United States Patent and Trademark Office database · disclosed 2002-05-14
basket
patent No. 353,237 · United States Patent and Trademark Office database · disclosed 1994-12-06
basket
design registration No. 0006
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on prior designs D1 to D11 for baskets or laundry baskets.
- ›The holder argued several exhibits lacked Italian translations, defended the contested design's individual character, and said the designer's freedom in baskets was broad.
- ›The Division accepted D1 and D3 to D10 as disclosed, rejected D2, D5 and D11 as inadmissible for missing translations or publication proof, and compared the overall impressions.
- ›It found the contested design's shape, lid, side openings, and woven pattern created a different overall impression, so the invalidity application was rejected.
Deciding panel
- MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI
- MemberBirgit FILTENBORG
- MemberJessica LEWIS
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000127595 vs Shenzhen Beipengxing Technology Co., Ltd | 2025-04-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000126496 vs Jiangmen Xinhui Zhenghua Ironware Co., Ltd. | 2025-03-07 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000119700 vs Guohua He | 2023-10-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000119221 vs Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo | 2023-10-22 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000121318 vs MIESZKO S.A. | 2023-10-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000121263 vs MIESZKO S.A. | 2023-10-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000121320 vs MIESZKO S.A. | 2023-10-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000121319 vs MIESZKO S.A. | 2023-10-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |