Invalidity · first instance · 2018-10-26
000010128
Contested design: 000141999-0006
Outcome
The invalidity application against registered Community design No 000141999-0006 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 000141999-0006 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 the gravure printing textbook 'Lehrbuch der Druckindustrie: Tiefdruck' (Vol. 5) describing rectangular print marks.
Lehrbuch der Druckindustrie: Tiefdruck
Operating instructions for sheet-cutting machines describing print mark requirements.
Examples of print sheets and advertisements for cigarette packets, a hair care product and Kodak.
Photographs of labels for printing and extracts from articles showing various labels for printing.
newspaper / TTX67
Brochure showing label-roll views, bearing a post mark dated 21/06/2002 and the web address www.dymo.de.
www.dymo.de · www.dymo.de · disclosed 2002-06-21
Undated photographs of label rolls allegedly known before 2004, plus a brochure bearing the same date as Annex 10.
Catalogue dated 1994 showing a large variety of labels from various views.
Extracts from a catalogue dated January 1999 and processing instructions concerning backing strips.
European patent cited as showing the technical character of rectangular print marks.
EP 1 718 472 B1 · European patent
European patent cited as showing the technical character of rectangular print marks.
EP 0 934 168 B1 · European patent
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant sought invalidity for unclear representation, lack of novelty and individual character, and features allegedly solely dictated by technical function.
- ›Holder disputed every ground, relied on court materials plus witness and expert evidence, and argued several visible features reflected design choices and viable alternatives existed.
- ›The Division held the rolled and unrolled views showed one product and satisfied the definition and representation requirements for a design.
- ›It found only some print marks technically dictated, not all visible features, and held the cited annexes did not prove sufficiently disclosed comparable earlier designs before filing.
- ›The application was rejected in full, and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000010127 vs Sanford, L.P. | 2018-10-25 | 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 |
| 000010129 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 |