Invalidity · first instance · 2024-10-04

000124459

Contested design: 006857819-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity against RCD No. 006857819-0001 is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 006857819-0001 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Lidl Österreich GmbHvia PDF extraction

Austria (AT)

Unter der Leiten 11, 5020 Salzburg, Österreich

Represented by

Geistwert – Kletzer Messner Mosing Schnider Schultes Rechtsanwälte OG

Holder · RCD owner

Gusta Garden GmbH

Austria (AT)

Eschenweg 16, 9551 Bodensdorf, Österreich

Represented by

Brand Rechtsanwälte GmbH

Prior art cited (19)

Prior useD1⚠ rejected as evidence

Kartoffelturm design shown in Lidl Ausmusterung

Lidl Ausmusterung

Web disclosureD2⚠ rejected as evidence

Netto-Pflanzturm, 4-piece flowerpot design

Bing / NETTO / discounto.de · disclosed 2017-03-14

Web disclosureD3

Paul Potato plant tower

Amazon.de / YouTube · disclosed 2018-04-15

Registered RCDD4

Community design cited for individual features

000295803-0003 · EUIPO · disclosed 2005-04-05

Registered RCDD5

Community design cited for individual features

000295803-0004 · EUIPO · disclosed 2005-04-05

National designD6

German design cited for individual features

M9207757-0001 · DPMA · disclosed 2005-03-25

National designD7

German design cited for individual features

402014000199-0001 · DPMA · disclosed 2014-12-12

Registered RCDD8

Community design cited for individual features

00726039-0001 · EUIPO · disclosed 2007-06-12

Registered RCDD9

Community design cited for individual features

00726039-0002 · EUIPO · disclosed 2007-06-12

Registered RCDD10

Community design cited for individual features

000604491-0001 · EUIPO · disclosed 2006-11-07

Registered RCDD11

Community design cited for individual features

001910928-0001 · EUIPO · disclosed 2011-09-09

International designD12

International design cited for individual features

WO D078049-010 · WIPO · disclosed 2012-08-24

National designD13

German design cited for individual features

4020140001999-0001 · DPMA · disclosed 2004-12-12

National designD14

German design cited for individual features

40005648-0001 · DPMA · disclosed 2000-09-25

National designD15

German design cited for individual features

40300569-0012 · DPMA · disclosed 2003-12-10

International designD16

International design cited for individual features

WO D023177-001 · WIPO · disclosed 1992-08-31

International designD17

International design cited for individual features

WO D017610-001 · WIPO · disclosed 1992-08-31

Web disclosureD18

Keter 17197973 Ivy Planter

Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2014-01-22

Web disclosureD19⚠ rejected as evidence

UPP Pflanzenturm

https://www.upp-shop.de/de/upp-pflanzturm-3er-set-stapelbar-anthrazit.html · upp-shop.de / Google

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(a)Article 25(1)(b)Article 3(a)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7Article 8(1)

Argument summary

›The applicant alleged the contested modular planter lacked novelty and individual character, was dictated solely by technical function, and was invalid because the views showed contradictory subject matter.
›The holder argued D1 and D2 were not proven disclosures, denied the technical-function objection, and maintained the filed views consistently showed a set of planters.
›The Division found the representation sufficiently clear, held Article 8(1) inapplicable because aesthetic choices remained, and accepted disclosure only for D3 to D18 except D19.
›Comparing each prior design individually, the Division found different overall impressions and no identical earlier design, so all invalidity grounds failed and the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

MemberNatascha GALPERIN
MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK

Decision files

Language	Type	Source link
enEnglish	human translated	Download original from EUIPO ↗
deGerman	original	Download original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

09.0311.02

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
000123774 vs Gusta Garden GmbH	2024-11-06	—	Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)	11, 09	12
000121618 vs Gusta Garden GmbH	2024-04-04	—	Art 25(1)(b)	11, 09	10
000129981 vs BLOOM OBJECTS ApS	2025-11-12	—	Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)	11	9
000114705 vs Albert Ungrad	2022-03-17	—	Art 25(1)(b)	11, 09	8
000129508 vs Messerle GmbH	2026-04-23	—	Art 25(1)(b)	09	7
000129522 vs Messerle GmbH	2026-04-14	—	Art 25(1)(b)	09	7
000127995 vs Jaroslav Masopust	2026-02-06	—	Art 25(1)(b)	09	7
000129516 vs MOHAMAR JAMOU	2026-01-14	—	Art 25(1)(b)	09	7