DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002702936-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-06-07

000118677

Contested design: 002702936-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application against Registered Community design No 002702936-0002 is rejected; 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 002702936-0002 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

Lulu Joanna Krzysztańvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Ul. Łąkowa 8, 34220 Maków Podhalański, Pologne

Holder · RCD owner

Vipa BVBAvia PDF extraction

Belgium (BE)

Klein-Harelbekestraat 26, 8530 Hulste, Belgique

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureAnnexe 1

Saartje Prum children's bed with an arched backrest and heart-shaped cut-out

https://www.saartjeprum.nl/bedbank-wolk.html · saartjeprum.nl · disclosed 2022-04-27

Web disclosure

Screenshot of a 2012 Facebook post showing Saartje Prum's children's bed

Facebook post of Saartje Prum · Facebook

Web disclosure

Blog screenshot showing Saartje Prum's children's bed

http://www.thebooandtheboy.com/2013/09/girls-rooms.html?m=1 · thebooandtheboy.com

Web disclosureAnnexe 2

Screenshots showing Saartje Prum's bed offered without a drawer

https://www.saartjeprum.nl · saartjeprum.nl

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5Article 6Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity under Articles 25(1)(b), 5 and 6 CDR, relying on prior Saartje Prum bed disclosures from Facebook, a blog and website screenshots.
  • The holder argued the compared children’s beds create a different overall impression because of the contested design’s feet, lighter structure, different side panels and straight front board.
  • The Division found disclosure of the Saartje Prum bed proven and assessed the prior design without the drawer, but held that the structural differences outweighed the shared arched back and heart motif.
  • The contested design remained new and had individual character, so the invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberJessica N. LEWIS
  • MemberMichelle Marie DELLACHERIE

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

06.02

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