DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001898206-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-07-27

000010648

Contested design: 001898206-0001

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 001898206-0001 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

Glama International Corporation France SAS

France (FR)

Route nationale 538, 13113 Lamanon, France

Represented by

Claire de CHASSEY

Holder · RCD owner

PG Design Inc.

Japan (JP)

2-1-4, Torigoe, Taito-ku, Tokyo 1110051 Japan

Prior art cited (6)

PublicationD1

bag ('Bag 1930')

Antiquités BROCANTE, No 30, page 137 · Antiquités BROCANTE

PublicationD2

bag ('Mary Quant bag')

BAGS, AN ILLUSTRATED HISTORY, page 92 · BAGS, AN ILLUSTRATED HISTORY

PublicationD3

purse ('Judith Leiber purse')

High Fashion Handbags, page 39 · High Fashion Handbags

Web disclosureD4⚠ rejected as evidence

purse

http://tengoku-mura.blogspot.fr · Tengoku · disclosed 2008-07-17

PublicationD5⚠ rejected as evidence

purse

arts & architecture, unnumbered page · arts & architecture

PublicationD6

purse

C+ ACCESSOIRES No 107, page 26 · C+ ACCESSOIRES

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6(1)Article 7Article 3

Argument summary

  • The applicant claimed the contested purse lacked individual character over six earlier bag and purse designs disclosed before 29/07/2011.
  • The holder argued the contested design's bulging shape, seamless silicone-covered surface, and bright colour created a different overall impression.
  • The Division accepted disclosure only for D1, D2, D3 and D6, rejecting D4 and D5 as insufficient proof of prior disclosure under Article 7.
  • It found shared purse shape and clasp features commonplace, while the contested design's unusual material appearance, seamless surface and colour made a different overall impression.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberGaile SAKALAITE

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

03.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000101840

vs ZCASE - Lukasz ZAWADA

2019-03-26Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)038
000124157

vs Invented Here B.V.

2025-03-07Art 25(1)(b)037
000124416

vs Wenbo Huang

2025-01-28Art 25(1)(b)037
000121569

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-06-12Art 25(1)(b)037
000121529

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-31Art 25(1)(b)037
000121526

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-24Art 25(1)(b)037
000121525

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-24Art 25(1)(b)037
000121568

vs PANAGIOTIS SPILIOPOULOS

2024-05-23Art 25(1)(b)037