DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005586005-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-04-04

000115827

Contested design: 005586005-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected and the applicant must pay the holder’s fixed costs of EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 005586005-0002 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

Larix Mobila SRLvia PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

Str. Iernuteni, Nr. 56, Mures, Reghin, Romania

Represented by

Elena Grecu

Holder · RCD owner

Fabryka Mebli BENIX Kaczorowscy spółka jawna

Poland (PL)

Mroczeń 29a, 63-604 Baranów, Poland

Prior art cited (5)

Registered RCDD1

seating furniture and couches

RCD No 002683946-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-04-30

Registered RCDD2

couches, upholstered and seating furniture, and sofas

RCD No 004008944-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-05-31

Registered RCDD3

sofas

RCD No 002722124-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-07-16

Registered RCDD4

couches

RCD No 004036994-0006 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-07-06

Web disclosureD5

3 seater sofa bed Barcelona Light Gray / COSMOPOLITAN

https://www.vivre.ro ; product code 980907 · VIVRE marketplace website and corroborating invoices · disclosed 2018-04-17

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 5(2)Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7(1)Article 7(2)Article 7(3)

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on five earlier sofa designs, including four RCDs and a VIVRE website disclosure supported by invoices and an affidavit.
  • Holder denied identity and lack of individual character, argued the cited designs reflected market trends, and said D5 should be disregarded because its Candy sofa had been disclosed earlier and protected as an unregistered design.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of D1 to D5, but found material visual differences for novelty and a different overall impression for individual character despite the informed user’s high attention and at least average design freedom.
  • The invalidity grounds under Article 25(1)(b) failed, so the application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

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

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
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

06.01

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
000120868

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

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

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

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

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

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