DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002370700-0073

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-04-23

000122278

Contested design: 002370700-0073

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, RCD No 002370700-0073 is declared invalid, and the holder must bear costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 002370700-0073 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Топ Тен EOODvia PDF extraction

Bulgaria (BG)

ul. Zhelezarska no. 9, 4000 Plovdiv, Bulgaria

Represented by

Stoyan Sirakov

Holder · RCD owner

Doors Bulgaria EOODvia PDF extraction

Bulgaria (BG)

j.k. 'Pobeda', bl. 9, floor 2, app. 10, 9000 Varna, Bulgaria

Represented by

Kostadin Manev

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosure

door with a brown wood-like finish and two vertical glass panels

http://sdelalremont.ru/kak-vybrat-mezhkomnatnuyu-dver-pravilno.html · Internet Archive / Wayback Machine · disclosed 2013-08-23

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying in particular on an archived pre-filing web disclosure of a door design.
  • The holder argued the screenshots were unacceptable evidence, did not prove disclosure, and the cited designs did not create the same overall impression.
  • The Division accepted the Internet Archive screenshots as proof of disclosure under Article 7(1) and found the prior design publicly available before the filing date.
  • It held that the shared arbitrary features, especially the brown wood-like door with two identically placed vertical glass panels, outweighed minor differences.
  • The contested design lacked individual character under Article 6(1)(b), so the application was upheld and the design invalidated with costs against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA

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

25.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129804

vs Mirosław Mytnik StudioDelta.pl

2026-05-06REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000129781

vs SHANGHAI KENDA INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.

2026-02-09REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000126955

vs Decora S.A.

2026-01-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000129761

vs Shanghai Kenda Industrial Co.,Ltd.

2025-11-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000127177

vs Hermanus Johannes Matheus Verdegaal

2025-10-14REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000129361

vs Xiaoxia LI

2025-10-09REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000129266

vs Taiyuan Jiuchangsheng Trading Co., Ltd.

2025-10-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258
000124780

vs D.ELLINAS FACTORY PRODUCTS LTD

2025-06-25REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)258