DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005242195-0006

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-05-16

000121199

Contested design: 005242195-0006

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application against Registered Community Design No 005242195-0006 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 005242195-0006 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

Borek Parasols B.V.via PDF extraction

Netherlands (NL)

Bedrijfsweg 7, 5061 JX Oisterwijk, Netherlands

Represented by

Taylor Wessing N.V.

Holder · RCD owner

Manutti BVBAvia PDF extraction

Belgium (BE)

Beverenstraat 17, 8540 Deerlijk, Belgium

Represented by

Dave Devloo

Prior art cited (5)

Web disclosureD1⚠ rejected as evidence

'Fred Astaire' sofa

www.classicdesigndirect.com · classicdesigndirect.com screenshot

CatalogD2

LAMBERT 'Cannes' sofa

LAMBERT price list ('PREISLISTE') · disclosed 2004-10-01

CatalogD3

'Orlando' sofa

www.issuu.com/bandzula/docs/manutti_mini_catalogue_2010 · Manutti mini catalogue 2010 on issuu.com · disclosed 2010-12-31

Web disclosureD4⚠ rejected as evidence

'Savannah' sofa

www.issuu.com/donate/docs/namea84754 · unidentified screenshots; hyperlink to issuu.com

CatalogD5⚠ rejected as evidence

holder's 'River' sofa

www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/57842591/manutti-outdoor-catalogue-2017-classic · Manutti outdoor catalogue 2017 / yumpu.com · disclosed 2017-12-31

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7(1)Article 7(2)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on five earlier sofa disclosures and arguing that many shared rounded woven features were technically dictated.
  • The holder disputed disclosure of several cited designs, denied that market saturation was proven, and argued the contested outdoor sofa's rounded bulky form, weave, proportions and cushions created a distinct overall impression.
  • The Division accepted D2 and D3 as disclosed prior designs, rejected D1 and D4 for insufficient proof of disclosure, and excluded D5 under the Article 7(2) grace period.
  • Comparing D2 and D3 with the contested design, the Division found clear differences in shape, proportions, weave, materials and cushions, so the design remained new and had individual character and the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberIneta GALUBICKĖ

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

06.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000127357

vs ED-Lifestyle Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG

2025-02-13Art 25(1)(b)067
000127356

vs ED-Lifestyle Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG

2025-02-12Art 25(1)(b)067
000127340

vs ED-Lifestyle Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG

2025-02-06Art 25(1)(b)067
000120920

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067
000120919

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067
000120918

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067
000120867

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067
000120868

vs Sergiy Fatkulayev

2024-03-27Art 25(1)(b)067