DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005507035-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-10-13

000114666

Contested design: 005507035-0003

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0055070350003 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

Mariusz Jachimczuk Edgardvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Ul. Belgijska 11, 02511 Warszawa, Poland

Holder · RCD owner

Bright Junior Media sp. z o.o. sp.k.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Ul. Władysława Syrokomli 20/8, 30102 Kraków, Poland

Represented by

Aleksandra Kacperska

Prior art cited (3)

National designD1

one piece of a jigsaw puzzle with a hole in its top right corner

French design No 970146-003 · INPI official bulletin · disclosed 1997-05-30

Prior useD2

zestaw maluszka jigsaw puzzle

Miss B.pl article / Allegro / product packaging · disclosed 2016-05-02

Prior useD3

zestaw maluszka jigsaw puzzle

Trefl Zestaw Maluszka Fisher Price 1464 · Allegro / product packaging / CENEO · disclosed 2018-02-18

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant alleged all essential features were dictated by technical function and that the contested puzzle lacked individual character over D1 to D3.
  • The holder said the movable round elements, their number, size and placement reflected creative choices, challenged disclosure of D2 and D3, and argued the overall impressions differed.
  • The Division found the applicant had not proved the design's essential features were solely dictated by technical function and accepted disclosure of D1 to D3 under Article 7(1).
  • Comparing the designs, it held D1 was plainly different and D2 and D3 still created different overall impressions, so the invalidity application failed.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL

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

21.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000128896

vs Sc Pitikot Store Srl

2025-08-18Art 25(1)(b)217
000124438

vs АУТДОР ПЛЕЙ

2025-04-03Art 25(1)(b)217
000126927

vs Jiujiang Storm E-Commerce Co., Ltd.

2025-03-25Art 25(1)(b)217
000121616

vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o.

2024-05-29Art 25(1)(b)217
000121617

vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o.

2024-05-29Art 25(1)(b)217
000121615

vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o.

2024-05-10Art 25(1)(b)217
000114244

vs UTILIS

2024-01-09Art 25(1)(b)217
000121427

vs Jinhua Baiwei Plastic Products Co., Ltd.

2023-11-15Art 25(1)(b)217