Invalidity · first instance · 2018-11-06
000010922
Contested design: 003521855-0001
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 003521855-0001 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
MOHABA GmbH & Co. KG
Germany (DE)
Mirweilerweg 8, 52349 Düren, Deutschland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Böckling GmbH & Co. KG
Germany (DE)
Neue Anlage 7-11, 74861 Neudenau, Deutschland
Prior art cited (4)
Applicant catalog excerpts showing cups, mugs and glasses of various forms, colors and materials.
Kreative Ideen für Ihren Glühweinbecher & Ausschank 2017 · applicant catalog
Catalog excerpts showing various drinking vessels allegedly made by ARC INTERNATIONAL.
Luminarc, 1. Halbjahr 2015 · Luminarc catalog
Undated website screenshot showing various vessels.
www.hirschglas.com/hirsch-glas_produkte4jpg · hirschglas.com
Blog article with images of various drinking vessels, including STÖLZLE Olympic and Black & White.
blog.barstuff.de/stoelzle-olympic-und-black-white/ · blog.barstuff.de · disclosed 2016-08-23
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued the contested mug design lacked novelty and individual character because identical or similar decorated glass cups had already been sold and advertised before filing.
- ›The holder replied that the novelty lay in combining full-surface interior decoration with coating on glass articles, which it had marketed as a new product since 2016.
- ›The Division held that most evidence did not prove prior disclosure under Article 7, and the dated catalog and blog materials still failed to identify specific earlier designs on which the application was based.
- ›Because no concrete earlier design was properly disclosed and identified, the invalidity grounds under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 4, 5 and 6 failed, so the application was rejected.
Deciding panel
- MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberMartin LENZ
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deGerman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000108801 vs BERLIN PACKAGING FRANCE | 2020-10-23 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 8 |
| 000000001 vs Franke Technology and Trademark Ltd | 2019-08-06 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 8 |
| 000000003 vs Franke Technology and Trademark Ltd | 2019-08-06 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 8 |
| 000000002 vs Franke Technology and Trademark Ltd | 2019-08-06 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 8 |
| 000010924 vs Novelis Deutschland GmbH | 2019-06-28 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 8 |
| 000101841 vs Richard Andrews | 2019-06-25 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 8 |
| 000102859 vs Syzan Sp. z o.o. | 2019-04-25 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 8 |
| 000103839 vs SEMIR RAAD MAROKI | 2019-02-25 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 8 |