Invalidity · first instance · 2021-05-12
000113661
Contested design: 006424172-0001
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 0064241720001 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
DÁM Kft.via PDF extraction
Hungary (HU)
Üde utca 4, 1037 Budapest, Hungary
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Adamo-Hammock
Hungary (HU)
Pusztaszeri u. 2, 6647 Csanytelek, Hungary
Represented by
Prior art cited (8)
hammock-type baby swing
https://wonderfuldiy.com/wonderful-diy-hammock-type-baby-swing/ · wonderfuldiy.com / Wayback Machine · disclosed 2018-05-03
baby swing
https://www.etsy.com · Etsy · disclosed 2016-08-25
baby swing
facebook.com / Ladybug Swing Company · Facebook · disclosed 2018-04-15
Baby Hammock Apparatus
WO 2013/088432 A1 · PCT publication · disclosed 2013-06-20
BABY BOUNCER
US 1 950 042 · United States patent · disclosed 1934-03-06
FREE-STANDING HANGING INFANT BASKETTE
US 2008/0060128 A1 · United States patent application · disclosed 2008-03-13
PORTABLE BABY SLEEPING SWING
US 5 729 844 · United States patent · disclosed 1998-03-24
SPRING SUPPORTED, HAMMOCK TYPE INFANT CRADLE
US 5 097 545 · United States patent · disclosed 1992-03-24
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over three baby-swing disclosures and argued the design was solely dictated by technical function.
- ›Holder filed no observations and left the invalidity application undefended.
- ›The Division found the design was not solely functional because its shape, proportions, materials and feature arrangement reflected visual design choices.
- ›Only Design 1 was proven disclosed, but it created a different overall impression; Designs 2 and 3 were not sufficiently disclosed under Article 7.
- ›The application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000127357 vs ED-Lifestyle Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG | 2025-02-13 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 7 |
| 000127356 vs ED-Lifestyle Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG | 2025-02-12 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 7 |
| 000127340 vs ED-Lifestyle Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG | 2025-02-06 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 7 |
| 000121199 vs MANUTTI BVBA | 2024-05-16 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 7 |
| 000120918 vs Sergiy Fatkulayev | 2024-03-27 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 7 |
| 000120869 vs Sergiy Fatkulayev | 2024-03-27 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 7 |
| 000120920 vs Sergiy Fatkulayev | 2024-03-27 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 7 |
| 000120919 vs Sergiy Fatkulayev | 2024-03-27 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 7 |