DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001466098-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2026-01-28

000122758

Contested design: 001466098-0003

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered EU design No 001466098-0003 is rejected, and the applicant must bear costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered EU design No 001466098-0003 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

MAR-S sp. z o.o. S.K.Avia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

63640 Bralin, Poland

Represented by

IPIDEA Patent Law Firm

Michał Ziółkowski

Holder · RCD owner

Sagan Fm Gabriela Wąsala Spółka Komandytowavia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

63-600 Kępno, Poland

Represented by

Marta Koremba

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCDprior design 1

Sofa-beds, Sofas

EU design registration No 003075803-0004 · Office's Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2016-05-02

Registered RCDprior design 2

Seating furniture

EU design registration No 002115931-0008 · Office's Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2012-10-29

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued that the contested corner-sofa design lacked novelty and individual character over earlier EU design No 003075803-0004 and also conflicted with prior EU designs under Article 25(1)(d) EUDR.
  • Holder maintained that the cited prior design created a different overall impression and that the applicant had not properly established the alleged prior designs or a saturated state of the art.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of prior design 1 but found visible differences in the headrests, armrests, quilting and legs, so the contested design produced a different overall impression and also was not identical for novelty purposes.
  • The Division further held that Article 25(1)(d) EUDR did not apply because both invoked prior EU designs had already been published before the contested design filing date, so the invalidity application was rejected with costs against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico D'ERRICO
  • MemberEmmanuel COLLIN
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES

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
000128557

vs Washtower IP B.V.

2026-05-19Art 25(1)(b)067
000128656

vs Washtower IP B.V.

2026-05-19Art 25(1)(b)067
000129371

vs joboo GmbH

2026-05-05Art 25(1)(b)067
000128978

vs Franco Ferri S.R.L.

2026-04-13Art 25(1)(b)067
000131627

vs Shuifa XIE

2026-03-31Art 25(1)(b)067
000130974

vs Højer Møbler A/S

2026-03-10Art 25(1)(b)067
000128937

vs Liyou Industrial Co., Ltd

2026-02-24Art 25(1)(b)067
000128579

vs Washtower IP B.V.

2026-02-23Art 25(1)(b)067