DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001817404-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-03-23

000110682

Contested design: 001817404-0004

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0018174040004 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

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 (7)

Registered RCDD1

armchair

RCD No 0000704200001 · Office Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2003-09-30

Registered RCDExhibit 3

armchair

RCD No 0004446410005 · disclosed 2006-01-31

OtherExhibits 4A to AE

'Schultz 1966 armchair', designed by Richard Schultz for Florence Knoll

OtherExhibits 5A and 5B

'Van der Sluis armchair', designed by Gijs van der Sluis in the 1960s

International designExhibits 6 and 7

'first Natal armchair', designed by Wim Segers

International design No 049 089 · disclosed 1999-08-17

OtherExhibits 8A and 8B

'Arco Frame chair', designed by Burkhard Vogtherr in 2000 for Arco

International designExhibits 9A to 9E

'Scalamonti armchair'

International design No 0638750001 · disclosed 2003-04-09

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, arguing the contested garden armchair largely reflected technical choices and closely matched earlier chair designs.
  • The holder said the design was a new Natal-chair variant with a specific combination of features, and argued the cited prior designs did not reproduce the same overall impression or were insufficiently evidenced.
  • The Invalidity Division accepted disclosure of earlier RCD No 0000704200001 and assessed individual character against that design, finding the designer's freedom for stackable armchairs broadly unrestricted.
  • It held the rounded corners, finish, colour and texture differences were minor, so the contested RCD produced the same overall impression as D1 and had no individual character.

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
000131404

vs Jiahe Lin

2026-05-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000128578

vs Washtower IP B.V.

2026-05-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000128655

vs Washtower IP B.V.

2026-05-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000128637

vs Washtower IP B.V.

2026-05-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000128735

vs OÜ REPSTON

2026-04-24REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000129372

vs Xuefang Cai

2026-03-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000130973

vs Højer Møbler A/S

2026-03-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000130975

vs Højer Møbler A/S

2026-03-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068