DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015030027-0005

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-11-13

000125978

Contested design: 015030027-0005

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD 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 015030027-0005 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Tierra Outdoor GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Gewerbepark Antrup 11, 49525 Lengerich, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

Caoxian Yuning Home Decor Co., Ltd.

China (CN)

Linzhuang Village, Ancailou Town, Cao County, Heze City (Shandong Province) 274400, China

Represented by

Jesús Eladio Sánchez Silva

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosureEvidence 1

Valencia outdoor lounge couch design shown in YouTube video titled "Tierra Outdoor 'Valencia' Loungeserie"

YouTube / Gartenmöbel Company · disclosed 2019-11-18

CatalogEvidence 2

Valencia outdoor lounge couch design shown on catalogue pages 36-37

Tierra outdoor 2019 catalogue · Tierra Outdoor catalogue · disclosed 2019-12-31

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over its earlier Valencia outdoor lounge design disclosed before 3 August 2023.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division accepted the 18 November 2019 YouTube video and the 2019 catalogue extracts as sufficient proof of disclosure under Article 7(1) CDR.
  • It found the couch designs created the same overall impression on the informed user, with only minor differences in brightness contrasts and cushion flatness.
  • The application was upheld under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 4(1) and 6(1)(b) CDR, so the Article 5(1)(b) ground was not examined.

Deciding panel

  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberCristina SENERIO LLOVET

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deGermanhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esSpanishhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
itItalianhuman 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
000131404

vs Jiahe Lin

2026-05-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000128578

vs Washtower IP B.V.

2026-05-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000128655

vs Washtower IP B.V.

2026-05-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000128637

vs Washtower IP B.V.

2026-05-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000128735

vs OÜ REPSTON

2026-04-24REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000129372

vs Xuefang Cai

2026-03-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000130973

vs Højer Møbler A/S

2026-03-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068
000130975

vs Højer Møbler A/S

2026-03-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)068