Invalidity · first instance · 2021-11-23
000114002
Contested design: 001112155-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 0011121550001 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Lawrence Longtonvia PDF extraction
United Kingdom (GB)
Windmill Hill Farm Sandy Lane, Brindle Lancashire PR6 8PQ, Vereinigtes Königreich
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Orgatex GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Albert-Einstein-Str. 19, 40764 Langenfeld, Deutschland
Prior art cited (5)
digital picture frame shown in an online blog post and handbook
https://sammyhub.com · sammyhub.com / handbook · disclosed 2007-12-23
digital picture frame shown in an online report and Stiftung Warentest report
https://www.digitalkamera.de · digitalkamera.de / Stiftung Warentest
trim piece in the form of a frame
US Design Patent No. 381,642 · USPTO · disclosed 1997-07-29
frame design from the Japanese design register
JPO Design No. 1086419 · JPO · disclosed 2000-09-25
IMTC International catalog showing a mousepad with a picture-frame appearance
IMTC International
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued the registered design lacked a single clearly identifiable subject matter and also lacked novelty and individual character over earlier disclosures N4 to N8.
- ›The holder replied that the views consistently showed the top and underside of one floor marking, with any line differences reflecting perspective or non-protected technical features.
- ›The Division found the four views formed one coherent design, so the Article 25(1)(a) challenge failed, and it accepted the cited prior disclosures as disclosed before filing.
- ›Comparing the contested design as a whole, including its reverse side, the Division held it created a different overall impression from each cited design and therefore retained individual character.
- ›The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
- MemberIvanka IVANOVA
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000127918 vs Meng Shen | 2025-10-07 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 20 | 7 |
| 000125695 vs Wuhan Yaoanxin Trading Co., Ltd. | 2024-09-17 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 20 | 7 |
| 000117833 vs Xuecong Chen | 2023-01-30 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 20 | 7 |
| 000113161 vs shenzhen kerchan technology co.,ltd | 2021-01-28 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 20 | 7 |
| 000105860 vs Televic Conference, | 2020-12-22 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 20 | 7 |
| 000011187 vs Chris Arathoon | 2018-07-25 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 20 | 7 |
| 000010490 vs ESPURRO BUSINESS s.r.o. | 2018-06-12 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 20 | 7 |
| 000127337 vs Engelbert Theben | 2025-10-21 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | — | 6 |