DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005657723-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-09-18

000120200

Contested design: 005657723-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant is ordered to pay the holder’s costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

Se desestima la solicitud de declaración de nulidad del modelo comunitario registrado n.º 005657723-0001. Se condena al solicitante a que sufrague las costas del titular, fijadas en 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Objekto S.a.r.l.via PDF extraction

France (FR)

9 Avenue du cabaret, 13790 Peynier, Francia

Represented by

SCP BBLM

Myriam Angelier

Holder · RCD owner

Christina Lundsteen ApS

Denmark (DK)

c/o Christina Lundsteen Gl. Holte Gade 42 B, 2840 Holte, Dinamarca

Represented by

Løje IP

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosureAnnex 2(I)⚠ rejected as evidence

Paulistano chair shown on the applicant's archived website

http://www.objekto.fr/ · Wayback Machine · disclosed 2004-10-14

CatalogAnnex 2(III)⚠ rejected as evidence

Paulistano chair shown in the applicant's 2004 catalog

Enveloppe Soleau INPI/10/06/2005; Maison et Objet 2004 catalog · INPI

PublicationAnnex 2(II)

Paulistano chair appearing in style magazines

Elle Decoration (November 2007); L’Express (September 2010) · Elle Decoration; L’Express · disclosed 2007-11-01

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character, relying on the earlier Paulistano chair and arguing both chairs created the same overall impression.
  • The holder replied that the similarities were limited to the basic rocking-chair concept and that geometry, proportions, backrest angle, and cover shape created a different overall impression.
  • The Division accepted magazine publications as prior disclosure but rejected the website images and catalog evidence for comparison or proof of disclosure.
  • Despite broad designer freedom for chairs, the Division found the rounded frame, more inclined profile, and cover differences sufficient to produce a different overall impression.
  • The invalidity application was therefore rejected and the applicant was ordered to bear the holder’s costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberRebecca Santana Davies
  • 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

06.01

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