DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008884282-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-05-15

000118938

Contested design: 008884282-0003

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 0088842820003 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

Top E Shop Bartosz Czech Andrzej Goński Sp.K.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Warszawska 8, 96200 Rawa Mazowiecka, Poland

Holder · RCD owner

Domtech Grzelak & Grzelak spółka jawnavia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Niałek Wielki 22C, 64200 Wolsztyn, Poland

Represented by

Marek Wiński

Prior art cited (2)

Catalog

prior bathroom mirror design identified in the applicant's evidence

Lumo Prawe · TOP E SHOP.PL 2019 catalogue

Catalog

prior bathroom mirror design identified in the applicant's evidence

Lumo L5 · TOP E SHOP.PL 2019 catalogue

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity under Article 25(1)(b) CDR, relying on earlier mirror designs allegedly marketed and shown in its catalogue and online listings.
  • The holder filed no observations despite being given time to respond, so the Office initially closed the adversarial phase.
  • The Division held that the application did not clearly link each prior design to novelty, individual character, or both, and the applicant missed the deadline to clarify.
  • Because the submitted facts, evidence and arguments did not properly support the invoked grounds, the application was rejected as unfounded.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • 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

06.0406.07

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
000120869

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067
000120920

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

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

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

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