DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015004754-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-01-15

000121138

Contested design: 015004754-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay 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 015004754-0002 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

TABB Interior Systems B.V.via PDF extraction

Netherlands (NL)

Zeusstraat 2, 5048 CA Tilburg, Netherlands

Represented by

AKD N.V.

Holder · RCD owner

VREE Group B.V.via PDF extraction

Netherlands (NL)

Gessel 62, 3454 MZ De Meern, Netherlands

Represented by

RISE

Prior art cited (5)

Prior useD1⚠ rejected as evidence

Partly assembled prototype of a telephone booth.

Applicant's premises in Tilburg, Netherlands · disclosed 2019-12-12

Prior useD2

Fully assembled prototype of a telephone booth displayed in the applicant’s showroom and the holder’s office.

Applicant's showroom and holder's office, Netherlands · disclosed 2020-06-16

Registered RCDD3

Video-conferencing booths / booths / cubicles / telephone boxes.

Community design registration No 002772418-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-09-28

Web disclosureD4

Otto Design for a Soundproof Office Pod.

www.DesignNest.com · DesignNest.com; tup.works · disclosed 2020-10-27

Web disclosureD5⚠ rejected as evidence

Technical instruction drawings of the Otto Design.

www.DesignNest.com · DesignNest.com

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant alleged lack of novelty from pre-filing disclosures and lack of individual character over earlier telephone booth designs.
  • The holder denied any non-confidential public disclosure and argued the cited earlier designs created different overall impressions.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of the fully assembled prototype, RCD No 002772418-0001 and the Otto Design D4, but not D1 or D5.
  • It found no identical prior design and clear overall-impression differences, so the invalidity application failed and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO

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

25.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000128596

vs Griptel AB

2025-07-17Art 25(1)(b)257
000124436

vs Ziel Home Furnishing Technology Co., Ltd.

2024-11-19Art 25(1)(b)257
000121099

vs TABB Interior Systems B.V.

2024-01-15Art 25(1)(b)257
000121100

vs TABB Interior Systems B.V.

2024-01-15Art 25(1)(b)257
000120379

vs Ergosafe Aktiebolag

2023-10-26Art 25(1)(b)257
000120958

vs Yimei Zhu

2023-07-27Art 25(1)(b)257
000119859

vs BoZarc

2023-06-02Art 25(1)(b)257
000117077

vs Budotechnika Sp. o.o.

2022-12-13Art 25(1)(b)257