Invalidity · first instance · 2024-01-15
000121100
Contested design: 015004754-0003
Outcome
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 015004754-0003 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Prior art cited (5)
Partly assembled prototype of a telephone booth shown in the applicant's premises
Applicant showroom photo metadata, Tilburg, Netherlands · disclosed 2019-12-12
Fully assembled prototype telephone booth displayed in the applicant's and holder's showrooms
Showroom photo metadata, Tilburg and De Meern, Netherlands · disclosed 2020-06-16
Video-conferencing booths / booths / cubicles / telephone boxes
Community design registration No 002772418-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-09-28
Otto Design / Soundproof Office Pod
www.DesignNest.com listing uploaded on 2020-10-27 · DesignNest.com · disclosed 2020-10-27
Drawings / technical instructions of the Soundproof Office Pod
Technical instructions for the Otto Design on www.DesignNest.com · DesignNest.com
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on earlier showroom disclosures, website disclosures, sales emails, an earlier RCD, and the Otto design.
- ›Holder denied any qualifying public disclosure, argued the prototypes remained confidential or non-public, and said the cited earlier designs created a different overall impression.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure only for the fully assembled prototype D2, plus D3 and D4, but found novelty preserved because the differences were not immaterial.
- ›The Division also found the contested booth created a different overall impression from D3 and D4 and therefore retained individual character; the invalidity application was rejected.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberElisabetta FERRARO
- MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000128596 vs Griptel AB | 2025-07-17 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000124436 vs Ziel Home Furnishing Technology Co., Ltd. | 2024-11-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000121099 vs TABB Interior Systems B.V. | 2024-01-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000121138 vs TABB Interior Systems B.V. | 2024-01-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000120379 vs Ergosafe Aktiebolag | 2023-10-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000120958 vs Yimei Zhu | 2023-07-27 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000119859 vs BoZarc | 2023-06-02 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000117077 vs Budotechnika Sp. o.o. | 2022-12-13 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |