DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005242195-0016

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-11-10

000121218

Contested design: 005242195-0016

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0052421950016 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

Borek Parasols B.V.via PDF extraction

Netherlands (NL)

Bedrijfsweg 7, 5061 JX Oisterwijk, Netherlands

Represented by

Taylor Wessing N.V.

Holder · RCD owner

Manutti BVBAvia PDF extraction

Belgium (BE)

Beverenstraat 17, 8540 Deerlijk, Belgium

Represented by

Dave Devloo

Prior art cited (5)

Web disclosureD1⚠ rejected as evidence

Fred Astaire armchair / sofa evidence mismatch

www.classicdesigndirect.com · classicdesigndirect.com · disclosed 2023-02-20

CatalogD2

Cannes armchair

LAMBERT PREISLISTE · LAMBERT price list · disclosed 2004-10-01

CatalogD3

Orlando armchair

Manutti Mini Catalogue 2010 / ForSeasons Pricelist 2005 · issuu.com / Manutti catalogue · disclosed 2010-12-31

Web disclosureD4⚠ rejected as evidence

Savannah armchair

www.issuu.com/donate/docs/namea84754

CatalogD5

River armchair

www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/57842591/manutti-outdoor-catalogue-2017-classic · Manutti outdoor catalogue 2017 · disclosed 2017-12-31

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

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over five earlier furniture designs, arguing the contested armchair's key features were technically dictated.
  • Holder filed no timely defence; its later observations were not taken into account, and the case proceeded effectively undefended on the merits.
  • The Division found disclosure unproven for D1 and D4, and D5 fell within the Article 7(2) grace period, leaving only D2 and D3 for comparison.
  • Compared with D2 and D3, the contested design created a different overall impression through its bulkier rounded structure, proportions, weave pattern, and cushions, so the invalidity application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberIneta GALUBICKĖ

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

06.0106.09

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