DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007771373-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-02-05

000122716

Contested design: 007771373-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested Community design No 007771373-0001 is declared invalid, and the holders must pay costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Dem Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung wird stattgegeben. 2. Das eingetragene Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster Nr. 007771373-0001 wird für nichtig erklärt. 3. Die Inhaberinnen tragen die Kosten, die auf 750 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Unideco Mobilya Sanayi ve Ticaretvia PDF extraction

Türkiye (TR)

Kazim Karabekir Mah. 6909/1. Sk. No:4/3, Izmir 35865 Türkei

Represented by

Katja Hafner

Holder · RCD owner

Toker Trading GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Steinbeisstr 16, 70736 Fellbach, Deutschland

Represented by

Andrej Bukovnik

Prior art cited (4)

National designAnhang 1

older Turkish registered design for a drying rack

2018-06477 · DesignView · disclosed 2018-11-26

Web disclosureAnhang 2

YouTube video showing a drying rack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_21a639tcvA · YouTube · disclosed 2012-10-04

Web disclosureAnhang 3

YouTube video showing a drying rack

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgJ8Rugxv88 · YouTube · disclosed 2015-11-04

Web disclosureAnhang 4

YouTube video showing a drying rack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MRoZ0JGvm8 · YouTube · disclosed 2016-08-04

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on an earlier Turkish design and YouTube disclosures of the same drying-rack product.
  • The holders were invited to respond but filed no observations.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of Turkish design No 2018-06477 through DesignView before the filing date and treated the relevant product sector as drying racks with broad design freedom.
  • It found the compared designs produced virtually the same overall impression, so Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b) was made out and the RCD was invalidated.

Deciding panel

  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

07.05

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131632

vs DETECTALIA EUROPE, S.L.U.

2026-05-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000129741

vs 2W ORGANIC

2026-05-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131788

vs Liu Xiaoxia

2026-05-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131628

vs Shenzhen Changhe Technology Co., Ltd

2026-04-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131704

vs Shenzhen Changhe Technology Co., Ltd

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131745

vs Huan Wang

2026-04-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000130924

vs SOHAI HOUSEWARES CO.,LTD.

2026-04-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131546

vs Foshan Changyuansheng Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-03-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078