Invalidity · first instance · 2021-10-25
000113625
Contested design: 002752709-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's fixed costs of EUR 750.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0027527090001 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
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 (7)
baby hammock design disclosed on the holder's Facebook account
https://www.facebook.com/ADAMO.Hammock/photos/a.135057723339051/244562379055251/?type=3&theater · Facebook · disclosed 2014-01-28
baby hammock design disclosed on the holder's Facebook account
https://www.facebook.com/ADAMO.Hammock/photos/a.135057723339051/244562379055251/?type=3&theater · Facebook · disclosed 2014-01-28
patent document cited for the technical-function argument about a baby hammock
WO 2013088432A1
patent document cited for the technical-function argument about a baby hammock
US 1950042A
patent document cited for the technical-function argument about a baby hammock
US 5097545A
patent document cited for the technical-function argument about a baby hammock
US 5729844A
patent document cited for the technical-function argument about a baby hammock
S 2008060128A1
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character and argued that the design's key features were dictated by technical function, relying on Facebook disclosures and several patent documents.
- ›The holder filed no substantive reply and had already totally surrendered the RCD, but the applicant confirmed a legal interest in obtaining a final invalidity decision.
- ›The Division rejected the Article 8(1) claim because the applicant did not prove the identified features were solely functional; several material, shape, and colour choices could reflect aesthetic considerations.
- ›The Division accepted the 28/01/2014 Facebook disclosures under Article 7 and found D1 created the same overall impression, so the RCD lacked individual character and was declared invalid with costs against the holder.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila CELISOVA
- MemberElisabetta FERRARO
- MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000131404 vs Jiahe Lin | 2026-05-21 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 8 |
| 000128578 vs Washtower IP B.V. | 2026-05-19 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 8 |
| 000128655 vs Washtower IP B.V. | 2026-05-19 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 8 |
| 000128637 vs Washtower IP B.V. | 2026-05-19 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 8 |
| 000128735 vs OÜ REPSTON | 2026-04-24 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 8 |
| 000129372 vs Xuefang Cai | 2026-03-12 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 8 |
| 000130973 vs Højer Møbler A/S | 2026-03-10 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 8 |
| 000130975 vs Højer Møbler A/S | 2026-03-10 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 8 |