Invalidity · first instance · 2020-07-27
000107559
Contested design: 004032522-0007
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0040325220007 is rejected. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Creative Design Group spółka z o.o. spółka komandytowavia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Kielecka 23, 02-550 Warszawa, Poland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
‘Mikomax spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością’ Spółka Komandytowavia PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
Dostawcza 4, 93-231 Łódź, Poland
Prior art cited (4)
Airea phone booth
https://www.apresfurniture.co.uk · Apres Furniture website · disclosed 2012-10-29
Biurokoncept phone booth
Facebook post · Biurokoncept Facebook account · disclosed 2014-06-11
Spacio phone booth designs
https://www.apresfurniture.co.uk; https://thpix.com; https://spaciomeetiniapods.com · Apres Furniture website; THPix; Twitter; Spacio Meeting Pods website; Web Archive · disclosed 2015-02-09
telephone booth design
RCD No 0040978140010 · EUIPO designs database; Chinese database extract · disclosed 2017-10-12
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant argued the telephone-booth RCD lacked novelty and individual character over earlier Airea, Biurokoncept, Spacio and RCD/Chinese designs sharing a cuboid body, rounded corners and a door occupying one wall.
- ›Holder disputed reliable disclosure and image quality, and argued the contested booth's plain, minimal, almost seamless construction differed from earlier framed booths despite common functional features.
- ›The Division admitted supplementary evidence only for previously invoked designs, accepted disclosure of Airea and several Spacio variants, and refused Biurokoncept and RCD No 0040978140010 as qualifying prior disclosures.
- ›The Division found the contested design neither identical to nor producing the same overall impression as the valid prior designs, because its minimalist plain surfaces differed from their framed, more robust appearance; the application failed.
Deciding panel
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000128596 vs Griptel AB | 2025-07-17 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000124436 vs Ziel Home Furnishing Technology Co., Ltd. | 2024-11-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000121100 vs TABB Interior Systems B.V. | 2024-01-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000121138 vs TABB Interior Systems B.V. | 2024-01-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000121099 vs TABB Interior Systems B.V. | 2024-01-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000120379 vs Ergosafe Aktiebolag | 2023-10-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000120958 vs Yimei Zhu | 2023-07-27 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000119859 vs BoZarc | 2023-06-02 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |