DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005834462-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-06-15

000109902

Contested design: 005834462-0002

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested Registered Community Design No 005834462-0002 is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant’s costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text(pl)

Wniosek o stwierdzenie nieważności zostaje podtrzymany. Stwierdza się nieważność zarejestrowanego wzoru wspólnotowego nr 005834462-0002. Właściciel ponosi koszty wnioskodawcy ustalone na kwotę 750 EUR.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Belini Polska sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Tabor Wielki 4b, 63-640 Tabor Wielki, Polska

Represented by

Kancelaria Patentowo-Prawna Venapatis

Ewa Gryc-Zerych

Holder · RCD owner

GiB Meble Gandecki i Berski Sp. Jawnavia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Mianowice 7A, 63-600 Kępno, Polska

Represented by

Marek Wiński

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosure

Calabrini I furniture set shown on Amazon Germany

www.amazon.de/dp/B075WWYKQY?ref=myi_title_dp&th=1 · Amazon.de · disclosed 2017-02-18

Web disclosure

Calabrini furniture set shown in an Allegro auction listing

www.allegro.pl · allegro.pl · disclosed 2017-10-30

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested furniture-set design lacked novelty and individual character because the Calabrini set had already been publicly disclosed online before the filing date.
  • The holder challenged the reliability of the applicant’s internet evidence, especially editable webpage dates, small screenshots, and the probative value of Wayback Machine materials, and requested a stay because of related Polish court proceedings.
  • The Division refused the stay, accepted the Amazon.de and Allegro online materials as sufficiently reliable proof of prior disclosure under Article 7, and found broad designer freedom for furniture sets.
  • It held that the shared structure, layout, proportions and appearance dominated the informed user’s overall impression, while the side-cabinet glazing difference was minor, so the contested RCD lacked individual character and was invalidated.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberAnna BAKALARZ
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
plPolishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

06.05

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