DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002404095-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-06-21

000010507

Contested design: 002404095-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicants must bear 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 002404095-0001 is rejected. 2. The applicants bear the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

BVBA Trafluxvia PDF extraction

Belgium (BE)

Europark 1003, 3530 Houthalen – Helchteren, Belgium

Represented by

Monard Law

Nele Somers, Nicole Segers

Holder · RCD owner

Molok OYvia PDF extraction

Finland (FI)

PL 90, 37101 Nokia, Finland

Represented by

Berggren OY

Prior art cited (6)

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Semi-underground waste containers shown in printouts from various websites of other operators.

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Article on the holder's website allegedly showing the design.

holder website · disclosed 2012-10-02

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Article on the holder's website allegedly showing the design.

holder website · disclosed 2011-06-01

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Article on the holder's website allegedly showing the design.

holder website · disclosed 2008-04-02

Catalog⚠ rejected as evidence

Holder catalogues marked for internal use only and not to be shown to customers.

holder catalogues

Catalog⚠ rejected as evidence

Price list and product information for Engels products.

Engels price list · disclosed 2012-08-06

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicants sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, and also invoked Article 25(1)(f), arguing similar waste containers had long been marketed before filing.
  • The holder filed no observations in reply.
  • The Division found the evidence unreliable or unusable because sources and dates were missing, some materials were untranslated, catalogues were confidential, and some images were too poor for comparison.
  • The Article 25(1)(f) claim was treated as unsubstantiated and inadmissible, and the invalidity application was rejected for failure to prove prior disclosure under Article 7(1) CDR.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

09.09

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000115888

vs SEDA INTERNATIONAL PACKAGING GROUP SPA

2022-02-09Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098
000115908

vs SEDA INTERNATIONAL PACKAGING GROUP SPA

2022-02-08Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098
000104119

vs Dzhihangir Ibryam

2019-10-17Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098
000103859

vs PHOENIX IND SA

2019-07-26Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098
000011140

vs GAMMA-A, SIA

2019-02-25Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098
000011251

vs Guy Vanhoutte

2019-01-28Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098
000011250

vs Guy Vanhoutte

2019-01-28Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098
000102462

vs TURCU GEANI-CRISTIAN

2018-12-21Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098