Invalidity · first instance · 2018-10-25
000010126
Contested design: 000141999-0004
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected and the applicant must pay 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 000141999-0004 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
Avery Zweckform GmbH
Germany (DE)
Miesbacher Straße 5, 83626 Oberlaindem / Valley, Germany
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Sanford, L.P.
United States (US)
6655 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, 30328 Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America
Represented by
Prior art cited (10)
Photocopy from a gravure printing textbook describing rectangular print marks.
Lehrbuch der Druckindustrie: Tiefdruck (Vol. 5)
Operating instructions for sheet-cutting machines with a diagram and print mark requirements.
Examples of print sheets and advertising materials said to date from 1994 to 1996.
Photographs of labels for printing and extracts from articles showing various labels.
Brochure showing label-roll views and bearing a postmark date of 21/06/2002.
www.dymo.de · www.dymo.de
Undated photographs of label rolls and a brochure said to bear the same date as Annex 10.
Catalogue dated 1994 containing labels in various forms and views.
Extracts from a January 1999 catalogue and related processing instructions.
European patent cited for the technical character of rectangular print marks.
European patent No 1 718 472 B1
European patent cited for the technical character of rectangular print marks.
European patent No 0 934 168 B1
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character and argued that the backing strip, holes, and print marks were solely dictated by technical function.
- ›The holder denied that all relevant features were technically dictated, relied on alternative designs and designer evidence, and defended the clarity of the registered representation.
- ›The Division found the representation showed one coherent design, not multiple products, so the Article 3(a) attack failed.
- ›On Article 8(1), the Division accepted that some small print marks served a technical function but found other visible features were not proven to be solely technically dictated.
- ›For Articles 5 and 6, the cited material did not sufficiently identify and prove disclosure of comparable earlier designs, so the application was rejected in its entirety.
Deciding panel
- MemberChiara BORACE
- MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
- MemberLudmila ČELIOVA
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000010128 vs Sanford, L.P. | 2018-10-26 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 19 | 10 |
| 000010129 vs Sanford, L.P. | 2018-10-25 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 19 | 10 |
| 000010127 vs Sanford, L.P. | 2018-10-25 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 19 | 10 |
| 000010130 vs Sanford, L.P. | 2018-10-25 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 19 | 10 |
| 000109361 vs Schwan-STABILO Schwanhäußer GmbH & Co. KG | 2020-03-11 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 19 | 8 |
| 000010792 vs QUESOS CAMPO LATINO, S.L. | 2018-10-24 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 19 | 8 |
| 000010793 vs QUESOS CAMPO LATINO, S.L. | 2018-10-24 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 19 | 8 |
| 000010578 vs Shanghai Lees Manufacturing Co., Ltd. | 2018-06-22 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 19 | 8 |