DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008175384-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-07-29

000117712

Contested design: 008175384-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must bear costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 008175384-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

De Besloten Vennootschap Atelier 49 Nederland B.V.via PDF extraction

Netherlands (NL)

Wethouder Buitenhuissstraat 1, 7951 SJ Staphorst, Netherlands

Represented by

M.C.J. Freijters

Holder · RCD owner

Babyjem Bbebek Ürünleri Sanayi Ticaret Anonim Sirketivia PDF extraction

Türkiye (TR)

Firuzköy Bulvari, No:114/a-5, Avcilar Istanbul, Turkey

Represented by

SILEX IP

Prior art cited (2)

Catalog

LUMA Babycare baby bath shown in BabyCare LUMA Catalogue 2013

code L10104 · BabyCare LUMA Catalogue 2013

Web disclosure

LUMA Babycare baby bath

Facebook image post · Facebook · disclosed 2013-08-08

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity of the baby bathtub design for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on its earlier LUMA baby bath disclosed before the 2020 filing date.
  • The holder was invited to submit observations on the invalidity application but filed no reply.
  • The Division accepted the catalogue extracts and the Facebook post dated 8 August 2013 as sufficient proof of prior disclosure under Article 7 CDR.
  • It found the compared baby baths nearly identical overall, with only slightly more visible grooves and extra views in the contested design, which did not alter the overall impression.
  • The application was upheld, the contested RCD was declared invalid for lack of individual character, and costs of EUR 750 were awarded against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

23.06

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000132264

vs SHANDONG QIYUE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY CO.,LTD

2026-05-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000131884

vs Zhaoqing Mikasi Home Hardware Co., LTD

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000130601

vs Zhou Canbin

2026-01-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000127275

vs GRZEGORZ PIĄTEK PHU "TOP SERVIS"

2025-09-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000128177

vs DECATHLON

2025-08-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000126775

vs Ecomsoul Pro SRL

2025-07-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
0001267152025-07-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000128196

vs Rafał Sowa

2025-07-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238