DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004536340-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-08-13

000101659

Contested design: 004536340-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application against RCD No 0045363400002 is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(fr)

1. La demande en nullité à l'encontre du dessin ou modèle communautaire enregistré nº 0045363400002 est rejetée. 2. La demanderesse supporte les frais exposés par la titulaire, fixés à 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Natalie Jones

United Kingdom (GB)

82 King Street, Gillingham, ME7 1ER, Royaume-Uni

Holder · RCD owner

Corina Dogaruvia PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

Drm. Sării nr. 14, bl. V63, sc. 1, et. 1, ap. 5, Sector 6, Bucureşti, Rumanie

Prior art cited (4)

Prior useannexe 1⚠ rejected as evidence

order form referring to velvet and lycra bows allegedly corresponding to the prior design

bon de commande CXQN-640392 · disclosed 2016-08-12

Otherannexe 2⚠ rejected as evidence

printed email concerning a dispute between the parties about bow sales

email correspondence · disclosed 2017-08-17

Otherannexe 3⚠ rejected as evidence

printed email exchange about collaboration, including two photographs of bows

email correspondence · disclosed 2015-01-21

Web disclosureannexe 4⚠ rejected as evidence

Internet Archive capture listing the applicant's bow products without product images

http://houseoflilah.bigcartel.com/products · Internet Archive · disclosed 2016-07-26

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant claimed the contested bow headband design lacked novelty and individual character because it copied bows sold on her websites and allegedly bought by the holder in August 2016.
  • The holder filed observations after the deadline, so the Division did not take that response into account.
  • The Division held that the annexes did not objectively prove public disclosure of a prior design: the web capture listed products without images, and the order form and emails were uncorroborated.
  • Because prior disclosure under Article 7 was not established, the invalidity ground under Article 25(1)(b) read with Articles 4, 5 and 6 failed, so the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberJessica Norma LEWIS
  • MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

02.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000106199

vs CALZATURIFICIO MERLYN SHOES SRLS

2020-02-18Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)028
000104179

vs Alanui S.r.l.

2020-01-21Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)028
000105199

vs Angels GmbH

2019-11-29Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)028
000011208

vs VAPESOL-FÁBRICA DE COMPONENTES PARA CALÇADO, UNIPESSOAL, LDA

2019-08-14Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)028
000011238

vs Lisa Marie Fernandez, LLC

2019-07-15Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)028
000011237

vs Lisa Marie Fernandez, LLC

2019-07-15Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)028
000011239

vs Lisa Marie Fernandez, LLC

2019-07-15Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)028
000011236

vs Lisa Marie Fernandez, LLC

2019-07-15Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)028