Invalidity · first instance · 2022-03-23
000114601
Contested design: 007343900-0001
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity of Registered Community design No 007343900-0001 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. 007343900-0001 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten des Inhabers, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Kessler Lifestyle GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Bregenzer Straße 39, 70469 Stuttgart, Deutschland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Thomas Kaiservia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Alte Poststr. 2, 87463 Schrattenbach, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (9)
wine crate designs
testimony of the president of Weinbauverband Wurttemberg e.V. with undated images
Amazon offer for a crate or multifunction box design
Amazon.de
Amazon offer for a crate or multifunction box design
Amazon.de
Amazon offer for a crate or multifunction box design
Amazon.de
Amazon offer for a crate or multifunction box design
Amazon.de
Amazon offer for a crate or multifunction box design
Amazon.de
Amazon offer for a crate or multifunction box design
Amazon.de
Amazon offer for a crate or multifunction box design
Amazon.de
'Kischde' crate design promoted by the applicant
Facebook and Instagram · disclosed 2019-12-04
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on D1 wine-crate evidence, seven Amazon crate disclosures in D2, and the applicant's earlier 'Kischde' design in D3.
- ›The holder argued the contested design remained new and individual and that disclosure of D1, D2, and D3 had not been properly proven.
- ›The Division found D1 unproven, accepted D2 and D3 as disclosed before filing, but held none of the earlier designs was identical to the contested design.
- ›The Division also found the contested fire-basket design created a different overall impression from D2 and D3, so the Article 25(1)(b) grounds failed and the application was rejected.
Deciding panel
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000125335 vs Digikor Oy | 2025-02-11 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 7 |
| 000121854 vs Zhenhua Sun | 2024-02-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 7 |
| 000120318 vs BIODOM EUROPE S.R.L. | 2023-10-10 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 7 |
| 000120199 vs William Huang | 2023-05-30 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 7 |
| 000116628 vs DCX POLSKA Sp. z o.o. | 2023-01-13 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 7 |
| 000118242 vs TAIZHOU WEIYE REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT CO.,LTD | 2022-11-03 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 7 |
| 000114903 vs CERAMICA CIELO S.p.A. | 2022-03-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 7 |
| 000114781 vs CERAMICA CIELO S.p.A. | 2022-03-02 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 23 | 7 |