Invalidity · first instance · 2020-06-30
000105420
Contested design: 001663766-0002
Outcome
The invalidity application 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. 0016637660002 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
1991 00985-0001 · Denmark · disclosed 1992-11-20
basket
2002-000000118-0001 · Serbia
basket
5,356,024 · United States Patent and Trademark Office · disclosed 1994-10-18
basket
D520,750S · United States Patent and Trademark Office · disclosed 2006-05-16
basket
3001130940000M01 · DesignView
basket
5,242,074 · United States Patent and Trademark Office · disclosed 1993-09-07
basket
344,167 · United States Patent and Trademark Office · disclosed 1994-02-08
basket
5,535,914 · United States Patent and Trademark Office · disclosed 1996-07-16
basket
D457,280 S · United States Patent and Trademark Office · disclosed 2002-05-14
basket
353,237 · United States Patent and Trademark Office · disclosed 1994-12-06
basket
0006
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over prior designs D1 to D11 for baskets or laundry baskets.
- ›The holder argued key evidence was untranslated and inadmissible, and that the contested design's lid, weave effect, and household-aesthetic features created a different overall impression.
- ›The Division accepted D1 and D3 to D10 as disclosed prior art, but rejected D2, D5, and D11 because missing translations prevented verification of their publication dates.
- ›Comparing the accepted prior designs with the contested RCD, the Division found material differences in shape, openings, lid, and surface pattern, so the design retained individual character.
- ›The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in representation costs.
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 |