DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000141999-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-10-25

000010127

Contested design: 000141999-0002

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 000141999-0002 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

Holder · RCD owner

Sanford, L.P.

United States (US)

6655 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, 30328 Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

Prior art cited (10)

PublicationAnnex 5⚠ rejected as evidence

Photocopy from a gravure-printing textbook describing rectangular print marks.

Lehrbuch der Druckindustrie: Tiefdruck (Vol. 5) · Lehrbuch der Druckindustrie: Tiefdruck

PublicationAnnex 6⚠ rejected as evidence

Operating instructions for sheet-cutting machines describing print-mark requirements.

PublicationAnnex 7⚠ rejected as evidence

Examples of print sheets used for cigarette packets, hair-care advertising, and Kodak advertising.

PublicationAnnex 9⚠ rejected as evidence

Photographs of labels for printing and extracts from articles showing various labels for printing.

TTX67 · newspaper / publication extracts

CatalogAnnex 10⚠ rejected as evidence

Brochure with a post mark dated 21/06/2002 and views of label products.

www.dymo.de · www.dymo.de

CatalogAnnex 11⚠ rejected as evidence

Undated photographs of label rolls and a brochure bearing the same date as Annex 10.

CatalogAnnex 12⚠ rejected as evidence

1994 catalogue containing a large variety of labels from various views.

catalogue

CatalogAnnex 13⚠ rejected as evidence

Extracts from a January 1999 catalogue with processing instructions but no comparable design views.

catalogue

PatentAnnex 14⚠ rejected as evidence

European patent copy relied on for the technical character of rectangular print marks.

EP 1 718 472 B1

PatentAnnex 15⚠ rejected as evidence

European patent copy relied on for the technical character of rectangular print marks.

EP 0 934 168 B1

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(a)Article 3(a)Article 25(1)(b)Article 5Article 6Article 7Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity because the design allegedly showed multiple appearances, lacked novelty and individual character, and contained features solely dictated by technical function.
  • The holder disputed all grounds, relied on court and expert material, and argued that several features reflected design choices and that workable alternative designs existed.
  • The Division found the registration images consistently showed one label-roll design and did not establish any defect under Article 3(a).
  • On technical function, the applicant proved at most that small print marks were functional, but not that all relevant features were solely dictated by function.
  • For novelty and individual character, the cited material did not clearly identify and validly disclose comparable earlier designs, so the application was rejected in full.

Deciding panel

  • MemberChiara BORACE
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberLudmila ČELIOVA

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

19.08

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000010128

vs Sanford, L.P.

2018-10-26Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)1910
000010126

vs Sanford, L.P.

2018-10-25Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)1910
000010129

vs Sanford, L.P.

2018-10-25Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)1910
000010130

vs Sanford, L.P.

2018-10-25Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)1910
000109361

vs Schwan-STABILO Schwanhäußer GmbH & Co. KG

2020-03-11Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)198
000010792

vs QUESOS CAMPO LATINO, S.L.

2018-10-24Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)198
000010793

vs QUESOS CAMPO LATINO, S.L.

2018-10-24Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)198
000010578

vs Shanghai Lees Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

2018-06-22Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)198