DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001453666-0005

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-04-08

000110669

Contested design: 001453666-0005

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

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

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Se estima la solicitud de declaración de nulidad. 2. Se declara nulo el dibujo o modelo comunitario registrado nº 001453666-0005. 3. Se condena al titular a que sufrague las costas del solicitante, que se fijan en 750 EUR.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Jaime Daniel Steelsvia PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Calle Junta de los Caminos, 47, 29190 Málaga, España

Represented by

Alicia Álvarez Gorris

Holder · RCD owner

Naxani Design, S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Avda. de la Libertad, 38, 46600 Alzira (Valencia), España

Represented by

Sandra Santos Rodríguez

Prior art cited (1)

Catalog

Naxani ELYSÉE bathroom furniture model

Naxani public price list and product catalog · disclosed 2015-02-01

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the bathroom-furniture design lacked novelty and individual character because the holder had disclosed the ELYSÉE model in catalogs, fairs, and a February 2015 price list before the grace period.
  • Holder challenged the applicant's evidence as undated or unreliable and argued the compared designs were not identical and created a different overall impression.
  • The Division admitted the February 2015 public price list as complementary evidence linked to the earlier catalog and accepted it as reliable proof of prior disclosure.
  • Comparing the claimed features only, the Division found the contested RCD identical to the earlier ELYSÉE bathroom furniture composition, with only insignificant extra elements in the prior disclosure.
  • The application succeeded on lack of novelty under Article 5, so the Division did not need to assess individual character under Article 6.

Deciding panel

  • MemberÁlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esSpanishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

06.0406.07

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