Invalidity · first instance · 2018-01-16
000010011
Contested design: 000840400-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected and the applicant must pay the holder's fixed costs of EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 000840400-0001 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
Thun Trade a.s.
Czechia (CZ)
Ctiradova 508/1, 14000 Prague 4, Czech Republic
Holder · RCD owner
Adekor s.r.o.via PDF extraction
Czechia (CZ)
Tovární 223, 35735 Chodov, Czech Republic
Represented by
Irena Langrová
Prior art cited (5)
Magazine pages allegedly showing Bernadotte porcelain-set decorations
Glasrevue 26 (1971); Glasrevue 25 (1970) · Glasrevue
Internal decoration books and cards for Bernadotte relief ornamentation
VS 1483-1773; VS 5061-5250; VS 1578; VS 5220 · Notarial deed No NZ 274/2015 N 206/2015 and supporting affidavit
Undated product catalogue said to have been printed in 1995 showing Bernadotte relief porcelain
Undated product catalogue said to have been printed in 1998 showing a Bernadotte relief porcelain set
Expert report with undated views of porcelain articles from Thun 1794 corporate documentation
Expert opinion No 3/2015
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, arguing the contested ornament reproduced the well-known Bernadotte relief used on porcelain products since at least the late 1960s.
- ›The holder disputed public disclosure under Article 7, arguing the submitted materials lacked reliable dates, did not clearly show the same design, and did not prove dissemination to the relevant circles.
- ›The Division found the magazine pages, internal decoration books and cards, catalogues, court materials, and expert report either did not adequately show a comparable design or did not objectively prove public availability before filing.
- ›Because effective prior disclosure was not established, the evidence did not support invalidity under Article 25(1)(b), so the application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila CELISOVA
- MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
- MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000127279 vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG | 2026-03-05 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 99 | 5 |
| 000127246 vs KNIPEX-WERK C. Gustav Putsch KG | 2026-03-05 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 99 | 5 |
| 000124717 vs ASA Selection GmbH | 2025-01-24 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 99 | 5 |
| 000113981 vs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd | 2022-04-08 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| 000115888 vs SEDA INTERNATIONAL PACKAGING GROUP SPA | 2022-02-09 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| 000115908 vs SEDA INTERNATIONAL PACKAGING GROUP SPA | 2022-02-08 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| 000109541 vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd | 2020-12-16 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| 000109481 vs Guangzhou Qiyue Information Technology Co., Ltd | 2020-12-16 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |