Invalidity · first instance · 2018-10-25
000010129
Contested design: 000141999-0005
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 000141999-0005 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 (8)
Photocopy from the gravure printing textbook Lehrbuch der Druckindustrie: Tiefdruck describing rectangular print marks.
Lehrbuch der Druckindustrie: Tiefdruck · disclosed 1974-01-01
Operating instructions dated April 1993 for sheet-cutting machines with a diagram and print-mark feature requirements.
disclosed 1993-04-01
Examples of print sheets for cigarette packets, a hair-care product, and Kodak advertising said to date from 1994 to 1996.
Photographs of printing labels and article extracts showing various labels for printing.
Brochure showing label-roll views and bearing a postmark dated 21/06/2002.
www.dymo.de · www.dymo.de brochure
Undated photographs of label rolls and a brochure said to bear the same date as Annex 10.
Catalogue dated 1994 containing a large variety of labels from various views.
disclosed 1994-01-01
Extracts from a catalogue dated January 1999 plus processing instructions, with no comparable design views.
disclosed 1999-01-01
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity under Articles 25(1)(a) and 25(1)(b), arguing the design representation lacked unity, the features were solely technical, and earlier label disclosures destroyed novelty and individual character.
- ›The holder denied those claims, relied on alternative designs and expert evidence, and argued several features reflected visual choices rather than purely technical constraints.
- ›The Division found the registered views consistently showed one label-roll design, and the applicant failed to prove that all relevant appearance features were solely dictated by technical function.
- ›The Division also held the alleged prior designs were not clearly identified or reliably disclosed before the filing date, so the Articles 5 and 6 challenge failed.
- ›The application was rejected in full and the applicant was ordered to bear the holder's fixed costs of EUR 400.
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 |
| 000010126 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 |