DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003993591-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-07-10

000010806

Contested design: 003993591-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld; the contested RCD is declared invalid; the holder must bear the applicant's costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 003993591-0001 is declared invalid. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Grand Tobacco Armenian Canadian JV LLC

AM

Shahamiryanner str. 22, 0061 Yerevan, Republic of Armenia

Holder · RCD owner

Khairat Al-Manafie Companyvia PDF extraction

LB

Zuqaq al-Balat Ahmed tabarra street, 117439 Beirut, Lebanese Republic

Represented by

Bogdan Alecu

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosureAnnex 3.1

graphic design for Akhtamar cigarette label

http://grandtabak.com:80/brands.php · Internet Archive · disclosed 2016-11-20

Web disclosureAnnex 3.6

graphic design for Akhtamar cigarette label

www.facebook.com/akhtamarcigarettes/ · Facebook · disclosed 2015-03-08

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty based on earlier Akhtamar label disclosures and also invoked an earlier Hungarian figurative trade mark.
  • Holder filed no observations in reply and left the invalidity application undefended.
  • The Division accepted the Internet Archive and Facebook evidence as reliable prior disclosures before 10/05/2017 and found the compared designs identical apart from immaterial colour-shade differences.
  • The RCD lacked novelty under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 4 and 5 CDR, so the application was upheld and the RCD declared invalid.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG
  • MemberPierluigi M. VILLANI

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
000118577

vs aqotec Holding GmbH

2023-03-28REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)3210
000101919

vs TELEHOUSE

2019-07-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)3210
000103741

vs URBAN BUILDNG

2019-05-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)3210
000011067

vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd

2019-03-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)3210
000011077

vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd

2019-03-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)3210
000011075

vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd

2019-03-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)3210
000011072

vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd

2019-03-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)3210
000011081

vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd

2019-03-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)3210