DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001132815-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-04-05

000010592

Contested design: 001132815-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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 001132815-0002 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

Julius Sämann Ltd.

Switzerland (CH)

c/o de la cruz beranek Rechtsanwälte AG, Industriestrasse 7, 6300 Zug, Switzerland

Represented by

Locke Lord (UK) LLP

Holder · RCD owner

KUBI, spol. s.r.o.

Czechia (CZ)

Pod nemocnicí 3, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic

Represented by

Martin Kořistka

Prior art cited (2)

Trade mark

tree-shaped air freshener design

Polish trade mark No 262946 · uprp.pl · disclosed 2003-10-06

Trade mark

tree-shaped air freshener design

International trade mark registration No 945 924 · WIPO · disclosed 2008-01-17

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character over earlier Polish and international trade marks depicting a tree-shaped air freshener, arguing broad designer freedom in the sector.
  • The holder argued the contested design's highly stylised outline differed from the more realistic earlier tree design and that prior Office decisions cited by the applicant were not determinative here.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of the earlier trade marks, found designer freedom broad, and compared only shape features because the contested RCD was protected as an outline drawing.
  • It concluded the contested design sufficiently departed from the prior art to create a different overall impression, so the invalidity application was rejected and costs awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

28.99

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000105504

vs Koninklijke Philips N.V.

2019-07-03Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288
000105503

vs Koninklijke Philips N.V.

2019-06-25Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288
000011128

vs Koninklijke Philips N.V.

2019-05-06Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288
000103459

vs Guangzhou Milin Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.

2019-03-05Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288
000010612

vs FIONNA COSMETICS EOOD

2018-12-10Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288
000010870

vs REFAN BULGARIA EOOD

2018-10-31Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288
000010869

vs REFAN BULGARIA EOOD

2018-10-31Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288
000010680

vs Marba Sp. z o.o. Sp. j.

2018-06-22Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288