DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000070420-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-03-23

000110681

Contested design: 000070420-0001

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 0000704200001 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

Borek Parasols B.V.via PDF extraction

Netherlands (NL)

Bedrijfsweg 7, Oisterwijk, 5061 JX, Netherlands

Represented by

Taylor Wessing N.V.

Holder · RCD owner

Tribù N.V.

Belgium (BE)

Oude Heidestraat 72, 3740 Bilzen, Belgium

Represented by

Awa Benelux SA

Prior art cited (5)

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Schultz 1966 armchair designed by Richard Schultz for Florence Knoll

https://knoll.com · knoll.com

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Van der Sluis armchair designed by Gijs van der Sluis

https://www.degeleetalage.nl · degeleetalage.nl

International designD1

first Natal armchair

DM/049089 · WIPO Designs Bulletin No 09/1999 · disclosed 1999-08-17

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Arco Frame chair designed by Burkhard Vogtherr for Arco

internet screenshot

International design⚠ rejected as evidence

Scalamonti armchair

DM/063875-0001 · WIPO International Design Database / WIPO Designs Bulletin No 49/2014 renewal publication · disclosed 2003-04-09

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 7(1)Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 5

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the contested chair lacked novelty and individual character, relying mainly on several earlier chair designs and contending many features were technically driven.
  • Holder replied that the design reflected a specific combination of choices, that not all invoked disclosures were proven, and that the shell created a different overall impression.
  • The Division accepted disclosure only for the earlier Natal design D1 and rejected the other cited items as insufficiently proven or untranslated evidence.
  • Comparing the contested design with D1, the Division found similar frame geometry but a strikingly different shell, producing a different overall impression on the informed user.
  • The invalidity ground under Article 25(1)(b) CDR failed, so the application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN

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

06.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000127357

vs ED-Lifestyle Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG

2025-02-13Art 25(1)(b)067
000127356

vs ED-Lifestyle Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG

2025-02-12Art 25(1)(b)067
000127340

vs ED-Lifestyle Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG

2025-02-06Art 25(1)(b)067
000121199

vs MANUTTI BVBA

2024-05-16Art 25(1)(b)067
000120918

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067
000120869

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067
000120920

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067
000120919

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067