DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005841921-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-10-28

000108882

Contested design: 005841921-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application 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 0058419210002 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

FUN LIGHT AMUSEMENTS, s.r.o.via PDF extraction

Czechia (CZ)

Přívozní 1054/2, 17000 Praha 7 – Holešovice, Czech Republic

Holder · RCD owner

Debt inkaso s.r.o.via PDF extraction

Czechia (CZ)

Roháčova 145/14, 13000 Praha 3 – Žižkov, Czech Republic

Represented by

Patent-K s.r.o.

Prior art cited (2)

CatalogD1⚠ rejected as evidence

lamp shade design shown in the 'GAMES & PARKS' catalogue in red and yellow on page 57

GAMES & PARKS catalogue

CatalogD2⚠ rejected as evidence

lamp shade design shown in the 'GAMES & PARKS' catalogue in white and green on page 43

GAMES & PARKS catalogue · disclosed 2013-10-09

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5Article 6Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity under Article 25(1)(b) CDR, arguing lack of novelty and individual character based on earlier lamp-shade designs shown in two 'GAMES & PARKS' catalogues.
  • The holder disputed disclosure of the earlier designs and argued that the submitted images did not show an identical appearance to the contested design.
  • The Division accepted that the catalogues could in principle evidence disclosure, but found the reproduced designs too poor in quality for reliable comparison and insufficiently identified by the applicant.
  • Because disclosure and precise identification of the invoked prior designs were not established for Article 7 purposes, the Division did not compare the designs on the merits.
  • The invalidity application was therefore rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

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

26.05

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000130945

vs Space Copenhagen Design ApS

2026-05-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)265
000119620

vs XAL GmbH

2026-04-15Art 25(1)(b)265
000119599

vs XAL GmbH

2026-04-15Art 25(1)(b)265
000119619

vs XAL GmbH

2026-04-15Art 25(1)(b)265
000131284

vs Venture MK UG (haftungsbeschränkt)

2026-04-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)265
000131304

vs Venture MK UG (haftungsbeschränkt)

2026-04-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)265
000131264

vs Venture MK UG (haftungsbeschränkt)

2026-04-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)265
000131245

vs Venture MK UG (haftungsbeschränkt)

2026-04-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)265