Invalidity · first instance · 2020-11-26
000105359
Contested design: 002227397-0002
Outcome
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 002227397-0002 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
Mega Collections B.V.via PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
Veerweg 2, 5145 NS Waalwijk, Netherlands
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Van der Leeden Mandwerk B.V.
Netherlands (NL)
De Griend 13, 4233 GE Ameide, Netherlands
Represented by
Prior art cited (8)
wicker baskets shown in a YouTube video
How to make a handwoven Wicker basket · YouTube · disclosed 2012-02-01
wicker basket shown in a YouTube video
PLETEME Z PEDIGU 3 · YouTube · disclosed 2012-11-11
rattan plant caddy
US design patent D503562 · USPTO patent database · disclosed 2005-04-05
Alva Basket Round Low Greywashed basket
Alva Basket Round Low Greywashed D36 H13 24/..48/.144 (43300040) · applicant's photobook catalogue and invoices
print screens of allegedly identical baskets
Google search results for baskets before 01/04/2013 · Google image search
holder-owned basket design invoked in the applicant's rejoinder
RCD No 002079095-0001 · EUIPO
baskets included in a 2010 Versteeg Manden BV catalogue
baskets 40021 and 40022 · Versteeg Manden BV catalogue
baskets included in a 2008 promotional folder of Den Uyl Handelsonderneming B.V.
Den Uyl Handelsonderneming B.V. promotional folder
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant sought invalidity under Article 25(1)(b), arguing the basket design was functional and lacked novelty and individual character over earlier basket disclosures and its own Alva Basket product.
- ›Holder replied that aesthetic choices remained in the material, colour, rim, open bottom and inner pot, and challenged the quality or reliability of parts of the prior-art evidence.
- ›The Division rejected the Article 4(2) visibility objection, found the design not solely dictated by technical function under Article 8(1), accepted D1 to D4 as disclosed, and refused the Google and late-filed additional designs.
- ›Comparing D1 to D4, the Division found differences in rim direction, wicker density, material, colour and the role of the inner pot, so the contested RCD remained new and individually distinctive.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000122480 vs Lilou Sp. z o.o. | 2025-06-03 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000122480 vs Lilou Sp. z o.o. | 2024-05-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000120678 vs POMELLATO S.p.A. | 2023-11-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000119878 vs Henan Nanhua Qianmu Biological Technology Co., Ltd. | 2023-04-11 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000117656 vs Fleurop AG | 2022-12-20 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000117858 vs Fleurop AG | 2022-12-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000117632 vs Yiwu Hongyu Trading Company | 2022-10-06 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000114705 vs Albert Ungrad | 2022-03-17 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |