DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002582122-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-01-20

000113142

Contested design: 002582122-0004

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity against Registered Community design No 002582122-0004 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. 002582122-0004 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

Hotelausstattung Schranz GmbHvia PDF extraction

Austria (AT)

Industrieparkstraße 15, 9300 St.Veit/Glan, Österreich

Holder · RCD owner

Halfar System GmbH

Germany (DE)

Ludwig-Erhard-Allee 23, 33719 Bielefeld, Deutschland

Prior art cited (4)

Prior useD1⚠ rejected as evidence

Tasche Garda bzw. Adria

Hotelpap GmbH Aktionsblatt / Faxverteiler

Web disclosureD2

bag

https://www.homeyohmy.com/diy-no-sew-beach-tote/ · homeyohmy.com · disclosed 2014-06-01

Web disclosureD3

bag

https://thecraftingchicks.com/simple-summer-totebag/ · thecraftingchicks.com · disclosed 2014-06-16

Web disclosureD4

bag

https://youtu.be/xfX9GnsS940?t=6 · YouTube · disclosed 2014-11-05

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over D1 to D4 and also argued the bag's features were solely dictated by technical function.
  • Holder argued the cited designs were not validly disclosed, the evidence was unreliable, the contested design remained new and individual, and no feature was exclusively technical.
  • The Division found the dark base and plain main body also had aesthetic effects, so Article 8(1) did not deprive the design of protection.
  • The Division accepted disclosure only for D2 to D4, but held those striped bags created a different overall impression and were not identical to the contested design.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

03.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000124157

vs Invented Here B.V.

2025-03-07Art 25(1)(b)037
000124416

vs Wenbo Huang

2025-01-28Art 25(1)(b)037
000121569

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-06-12Art 25(1)(b)037
000121529

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-31Art 25(1)(b)037
000121525

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-24Art 25(1)(b)037
000121526

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-24Art 25(1)(b)037
000121528

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-23Art 25(1)(b)037
000121568

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-23Art 25(1)(b)037