DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003143957-0041

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-08-29

000118899

Contested design: 003143957-0041

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 003143957-0041 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Kaufhaus Martin Stolz GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Markt 2-6, 23769 Fehmarn OT Burg, Deutschland

Represented by

Maiwald GmbH

Holder · RCD owner

Naketano GmbH

Germany (DE)

Alfredstraße 57-65, 45130 Essen, Deutschland

Prior art cited (5)

OtherD1⚠ rejected as evidence

Model 'Schwarzkopf' jacket/hooded sweatshirt design

Statements in Naketano GmbH court pleadings; Amazon screenshot · disclosed 2015-07-21

OtherD2⚠ rejected as evidence

Model 'Blonder Engel' jacket/hooded sweatshirt design

Statements in Naketano GmbH court pleadings · disclosed 2015-07-21

OtherD3

Model 'Gigi Meroni' jacket/hooded sweatshirt design

Naketano GmbH court pleadings and Munich court judgments; eBay listing · disclosed 2015-01-14

OtherD4

Model 'Brazzo' jacket/hooded sweatshirt design

Naketano GmbH court pleadings and Munich court judgment · disclosed 2013-02-04

OtherD5

Model 'Monsterbumserin' jacket/hooded sweatshirt design

Wayback Machine page, Naketano GmbH court pleadings and Munich court judgments · disclosed 2013-07-15

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7(1)Article 7(2)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on five earlier jacket or hooded sweatshirt designs labelled D1 to D5.
  • The holder argued disclosure was unproven, D1 and D2 fell within the 12-month grace period, and the contested design remained new and individually distinctive.
  • The Division excluded D1 and D2 under Article 7(2), but accepted disclosure of D3 to D5 based on the holder's own court pleadings and judgments.
  • Comparing D3 to D5 with the contested design, the Division found visible differences in pockets, seams and silhouette, so novelty and individual character were upheld and the application failed.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK

Decision files

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

Locarno classes

02.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000123916

vs Crocs, Inc.

2024-11-18Art 25(1)(b)027
000123935

vs Crocs, Inc.

2024-11-18Art 25(1)(b)027
000120862

vs Dongguan Zhicheng Lighting Co., Ltd.

2024-11-06Art 25(1)(b)027
000122914

vs JSP Limited

2024-04-25Art 25(1)(b)027
000122915

vs JSP Limited

2024-04-25Art 25(1)(b)027
000121459

vs Birkenstock IP GmbH

2024-04-09Art 25(1)(b)027
000121479

vs Birkenstock IP GmbH

2024-04-08Art 25(1)(b)027
000121478

vs Birkenstock IP GmbH

2024-04-04Art 25(1)(b)027