Invalidity · first instance · 2024-01-09
000114244
Contested design: 001110787-0003
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected and the applicant is ordered to pay the proprietor's fixed costs of EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Rejects the application for a declaration of invalidity against registered Community design No 001110787-0003. 2. Orders the applicant to bear the proprietor’s costsfixed at EUR 400.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Innovation for shelter International SARLvia PDF extraction
LU
203, rue du Parc, 3542 Dudelange, Luxembourg
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Utilis SASvia PDF extraction
France (FR)
ZAC du Pôle Industriel Nord, rue Mariculotte, 57365 Ennery, France
Represented by
Eric Radzimski
Prior art cited (7)
European patent for a folding scalable structure for a tent or similar quick-mount shelter
EP 1 493 886 B1 · European patent
report reproducing commercial DVD photographs of the holder's tents, including photo 18
Statement report dated 17/04/2020 · commercial DVD / statement report
US patent cited for additional cross-bracing in tent structures
US Patent 4,327,690 · United States patent
holder website page for TL/TXL tactical tents
https://www.utilis-international.com/fr/products/tl--txl · utilis-international.com
inventory of two commercial DVDs distributed by the holder showing tent configurations
Report report of 03/04/2020 · commercial DVDs / report
German magazine image of a tent design
Unterbringung im Einsatz · CPM 2006 / Unterbringung im Einsatz
German magazine image of a tent design
Strategie und Technik · Strategie und Technik
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity because the tent design was allegedly dictated by technical function and lacked individual character over earlier patents, commercial materials, and two German magazine disclosures.
- ›The holder disputed both admissibility and merits, argued the tent's angular frame and cross-bracing reflected aesthetic choices, and relied on the parallel Paris litigation and final French judgment.
- ›The Division held the Article 8(1) attack inadmissible because the Paris court had already finally ruled between the same parties on the same contested design and cause of action.
- ›For the remaining Article 6 case, the Division accepted the two 2006 magazine disclosures but found visible differences in the frame shape, openings, and cross-bracing created a different overall impression.
- ›The invalidity application was therefore rejected and the applicant was ordered to reimburse the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberJessica N. LEWIS
- MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000128896 vs Sc Pitikot Store Srl | 2025-08-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000124438 vs АУТДОР ПЛЕЙ | 2025-04-03 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000126927 vs Jiujiang Storm E-Commerce Co., Ltd. | 2025-03-25 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000121617 vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o. | 2024-05-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000121616 vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o. | 2024-05-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000121615 vs nano Vo Sp. z o.o. | 2024-05-10 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000121427 vs Jinhua Baiwei Plastic Products Co., Ltd. | 2023-11-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |
| 000119359 vs TECH LIVING LIMITED | 2023-06-12 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 21 | 7 |