DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006857819-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-11-06

000123774

Contested design: 006857819-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity 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

Jelenia Plast sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Spoldzielcza 47, 58 500 Jelenia Gora, Poland

Represented by

Harmsen Utescher

Holder · RCD owner

Gusta Garden GmbH

Austria (AT)

Eschenweg 16, 9551 Bodensdorf, Austria

Prior art cited (8)

OtherD1⚠ rejected as evidence

Lidl product-sampling disclosure of a Romberg potato tower

Lidl Ausmusterung

Web disclosureD2

Amazon listing for Paul Potato

Amazon.de · disclosed 2018-04-15

Registered RCDD3

RCD No 000295803-0003 · EUIPO database · disclosed 2005-04-05

Registered RCDD4

RCD No 000295803-0004 · EUIPO database · disclosed 2005-04-05

National designD5⚠ rejected as evidence

German Design No M9207757-0001

National designD6⚠ rejected as evidence

German Design No 402014000199-0001

Registered RCDD7

RCD No 00726039-0001 · EUIPO database · disclosed 2007-06-12

Web disclosureD8

Keter 17197973 Ivy Planter

Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2014-01-22

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, alleged technical functionality, and argued the representations were inconsistent and did not show a single design.
  • The holder argued the second invalidity action was admissible but unfounded, denied any proven disclosure of several cited designs, defended novelty and individual character, and disputed the technical-function objection.
  • The Division found the representations consistently showed a set of plant containers, rejected the Article 8 objection, and accepted disclosure only for D2, D3, D4, D7, and D8.
  • Comparing each disclosed prior design individually, the Division found a different overall impression and no identical prior design, so all invalidity grounds failed and the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload 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.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000124459

vs Gusta Garden GmbH

2024-10-04Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)11, 0912
000121618

vs Gusta Garden GmbH

2024-04-04Art 25(1)(b)11, 0910
000129981

vs BLOOM OBJECTS ApS

2025-11-12Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)119
000114705

vs Albert Ungrad

2022-03-17Art 25(1)(b)11, 098
000129508

vs Messerle GmbH

2026-04-23Art 25(1)(b)097
000129522

vs Messerle GmbH

2026-04-14Art 25(1)(b)097
000127995

vs Jaroslav Masopust

2026-02-06Art 25(1)(b)097
000129516

vs MOHAMAR JAMOU

2026-01-14Art 25(1)(b)097