DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002034009-0009

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-10-31

000010870

Contested design: 002034009-0009

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 0020340090009 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

Aroma Essence Ltd.

Bulgaria (BG)

rd “Vasil Levski” bl. 8, 6100 Kazanlak, Bulgaria

Represented by

Деян Вълчев Иванов

Holder · RCD owner

Refan Bulgaria Oodvia PDF extraction

Bulgaria (BG)

Karlovsko shose 52, Trud, Bulgaria

Represented by

IP Consulting Ltd.

Ivan Nikolov Ivanov

Prior art cited (3)

Patent

soap bar with embedded sponge

US D612,990 S · US patent document · disclosed 2010-03-30

Registered RCD

cleaning sponges

RCD No 001737206-0001 · DesignView

Registered RCD

household sponges

RCD No 00288733-0002 · DesignView

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on a US design patent and two earlier RCDs for layered sponges or soap bars.
  • The holder argued the contested design was new and had individual character because its proportions, layering, outlines, and visible surface features differed from the cited designs.
  • The Invalidity Division accepted disclosure of all three earlier designs but found none identical to the contested RCD, so the novelty ground failed.
  • The Division also found the informed user would perceive a different overall impression, especially from the thin dark base, larger light upper layer, and distinct surface features.
  • The application was rejected in full and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's representation costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

28.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000105504

vs Koninklijke Philips N.V.

2019-07-03Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288
000105503

vs Koninklijke Philips N.V.

2019-06-25Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288
000011128

vs Koninklijke Philips N.V.

2019-05-06Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288
000103459

vs Guangzhou Milin Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.

2019-03-05Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288
000010612

vs FIONNA COSMETICS EOOD

2018-12-10Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288
000010869

vs REFAN BULGARIA EOOD

2018-10-31Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288
000010680

vs Marba Sp. z o.o. Sp. j.

2018-06-22Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288
000010592

vs KUBI, spol. s.r.o.

2018-04-05Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288