DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006081899-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-11-11

000116066

Contested design: 006081899-0004

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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 006081899-0004 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

Anji Chenlin Furniture Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

Baishuiwan village, Tianhuangping Town, Anji County, Huzhou City, Zhejiang Province, People’s Republic of China

Holder · RCD owner

Anji Younike Furniture Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

Rm. 603, Unit 1, Bldg. 66, No. 28 Muwang East Rd., Changshuo St., Anji County, Huzhou, Zhejiang, People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Marcella Clarke

Prior art cited (4)

Registered RCDD1

Chairs [seats]

Community design registration No 005502556-0003 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-07-17

PatentD2

bar chair

CN 303 174 521 S · Chinese Intellectual Property Office · disclosed 2015-04-22

PatentD3

bar chair

CN 301 898 051 S · Chinese Intellectual Property Office · disclosed 2012-05-02

PatentD4

bar chair

CN 300 895 614 D · Chinese Intellectual Property Office · disclosed 2009-03-25

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, combining the contested stool seat with features shown in D1 to D4.
  • The holder filed no observations and left the invalidity application undefended.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of D1 to D4 but found none identical to the contested design and rejected feature-by-feature combinations across different prior designs.
  • It held the contested design created a different overall impression from each prior design individually, so the invalidity grounds failed and the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI

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

06.06

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000127357

vs ED-Lifestyle Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG

2025-02-13Art 25(1)(b)067
000127356

vs ED-Lifestyle Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG

2025-02-12Art 25(1)(b)067
000127340

vs ED-Lifestyle Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG

2025-02-06Art 25(1)(b)067
000121199

vs MANUTTI BVBA

2024-05-16Art 25(1)(b)067
000120918

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067
000120869

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067
000120920

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067
000120919

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067