Invalidity · first instance · 2023-02-24
000117613
Contested design: 004014124-0002
Outcome
The invalidity application against Registered Community Design No 004014124-0002 is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(fr)
1. La demande en nullité à l’encontre du dessin ou modèle communautaire enregistré nº 004014124-0002 est rejetée. 2. La demanderesse supporte les frais de la titulaire, fixés à 400 EUR.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Lidl Nederland GmbHvia PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
Havenstraat 71, 1271 AD Huizen, Pays-Bas
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Morel S.A.S.via PDF extraction
France (FR)
Zi rue Blaise Pascal, 39000 Lons-Le-Saunier, France
Represented by
Prior art cited (7)
shade sail with at least one light source
WO 2017 220 886 · WIPO patent publication · disclosed 2017-12-28
triangular shade sail offered for sale on Amazon
Amazon
triangular shade sail offered for sale on Amazon
Amazon
triangular shade sail
CN 302408003 · WIPO IP Portal · disclosed 2013-04-24
triangular shade sail
RCD No 003366954-0002 · disclosed 2016-09-19
triangular shade sail in a public space
triangular shade sail in a catalog
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested illuminated shade sail was exclusively dictated by technical function and also lacked novelty and individual character over a patent and earlier triangular shade-sail disclosures.
- ›The holder replied that the design claimed a visually distinctive lighted shade sail, with decorative luminous points and other visible features not chosen solely for technical reasons.
- ›The Division found the patent evidence did not show that the design's essential visual features were exclusively function-driven, rejected or discounted several cited disclosures for inadequate proof or inadmissibility, and accepted D3 while excluding D4 under the grace period.
- ›The accepted prior art did not create the same overall impression on the informed user, so the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila CELISOVA
- MemberJessica LEWIS
- MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000124157 vs Invented Here B.V. | 2025-03-07 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 7 |
| 000124416 vs Wenbo Huang | 2025-01-28 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 7 |
| 000121569 vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS | 2024-06-12 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 7 |
| 000121529 vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS | 2024-05-31 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 7 |
| 000121526 vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS | 2024-05-24 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 7 |
| 000121525 vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS | 2024-05-24 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 7 |
| 000121568 vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS | 2024-05-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 7 |
| 000121527 vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS | 2024-05-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 03 | 7 |