DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003178136-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-07-10

000010546

Contested design: 003178136-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 003178136-0001 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

Emini Workwear

Romania (RO)

fără, nr.69, Tormac, Romania

Represented by

Fantana Raul Sorin & Assoc. SRL

Raul Sorin Fântână

Holder · RCD owner

Cristian Petrovicivia PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

Strada Nicolae Grivu B, nr 140, SC A, ap 13 Timisoara, Timisoara, Romania

Represented by

Bogdan Alecu

Prior art cited (4)

Prior useInvoice a)⚠ rejected as evidence

Logo appearing on invoice issued by the applicant to Auchan Romania.

Applicant invoice to Auchan Romania · disclosed 2014-04-15

Prior useInvoice b)⚠ rejected as evidence

Logo appearing on invoice issued by the applicant to Auchan Romania.

Applicant invoice to Auchan Romania · disclosed 2014-11-12

Prior useInvoice c)⚠ rejected as evidence

Logo appearing on invoice issued by the applicant to SMITHFIELD PROD S.R.L.

Applicant invoice to SMITHFIELD PROD S.R.L. · disclosed 2014-06-06

Trade mark⚠ rejected as evidence

Figurative mark corresponding to the contested logo, registered in the RCD holder's name.

Romanian trade mark registration No M 201 501 092 · Romanian trade mark register · disclosed 2015-10-30

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5Article 6Article 7Article 25(1)(f)Article 25(3)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on a logo allegedly disclosed in 2014, and also invoked bad faith and copyright.
  • The holder filed no observations in reply.
  • The Division held that bad faith and reliance on an unregistered Community design were inadmissible grounds under Article 25(1) CDR.
  • The invoices and trademark registration were excluded or insufficient to prove prior disclosure of a qualifying earlier design under Article 7 CDR.
  • The applicant failed to prove entitlement to a copyright capable of prohibiting use of the contested design, so the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

32.00

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000010730

vs BEVERAGES Mark Limited

2018-06-08Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f)3210
000105119

vs C&G Household Products Limited

2020-03-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)328
000011193

vs VAN DER HAEGEN & NECKEBROECK, bvba

2019-07-19Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)328
000011061

vs SOFIDEL S.P.A.

2018-12-19Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)328
000011060

vs SOFIDEL S.P.A.

2018-12-18Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)328
000010617

vs Naketano GmbH

2018-10-16Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)328
000122975

vs aqotec Holding GmbH

2024-05-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(f)327
000116999

vs Kai Collective Ltd

2023-07-13Art 25(1)(b)327