DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000009097-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-11-23

000010733

Contested design: 000009097-0001

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

The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 000009097-0001 is rejected. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Dinopol Sp. z o.o.

Poland (PL)

ul. Odolanowska 91, 63 400 Ostrów Wielkopolski, Poland

Holder · RCD owner

Brødrene Hartmann A/S

Denmark (DK)

Ørnegårdsvej 18, 2820 Gentofte, Denmark

Represented by

Budde Schou A/S

Prior art cited (14)

Patent

display package patent owned by Bro-Drene Hartmann A/S

US 7,665,608 B2 · United States Patent

Patent

display package for articles such as eggs

EP 1 373 100 B1 · European Patent

Patent

Polish patent owned by Brødrene Hartmann A/S concerning egg packaging

PL 200 629 B1 · Polish Patent

Web disclosureD1

fact sheet for '2x6 imagic® E 9812' egg packaging

https://hartmannazurecdn.azureedge.net · hartmannazurecdn.azureedge.net

PublicationD2

summary of market report available online

Global Egg Packaging Market 2016-2020 · businesswire.com

PublicationD3

excerpt from annual accounts and directors report

Huhtamaki 2013 Annual Accounts and Directors’ Report · Huhtamaki

PublicationD4

article excerpt from page 44 of Poultry Digest

Poultry Digest article “Huhtamaki’s extensive range of egg packaging solutions” · Poultry Digest

PublicationD5

Brødrene Hartmann flyer on moulded fibre egg packaging

Good reasons for using moulded fibre egg packaging · hartmannazurecdn.azureedge.net

CatalogD6

online egg carton data sheets of various brands including OMNI-PAC, Celluloses de la Loire and Huhtamaki

online

Web disclosureD7

Technical Egg packaging Information webpage screenshot

http://hartmann-packaging.com · hartmann-packaging.com · disclosed 2016-09-14

Web disclosureD8

imagic® egg packaging webpage printout

http://www.hartmann-packaging.com · hartmann-packaging.com · disclosed 2017-05-23

PublicationD9

MOBA specifications for packaging producers

Grading-Packing-Processing. Egg packing info and requirements: Grading · MOBA

PublicationD10

STAALKAT specifications for packaging producers

PD Eggtrays Guidelines · STAALKAT

Web disclosureD11

NestPack – The premium webpage printout

http://www.huhtamaki.com · huhtamaki.com

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued that the egg carton’s essential features were solely dictated by technical function under Article 8(1), relying on patents, machine specifications and market materials.
  • Holder responded that the overall visual impression was unique, alternative designs could perform the same functions, and machine compatibility did not dictate the exact chosen appearance.
  • The Invalidity Division found egg-carton packaging in this market also serves visual differentiation and marketing purposes, as confirmed by the evidence submitted by both sides.
  • It concluded that the essential features were not solely technically driven and rejected the invalidity application, ordering the applicant to bear costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

09.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000115888

vs SEDA INTERNATIONAL PACKAGING GROUP SPA

2022-02-09Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098
000115908

vs SEDA INTERNATIONAL PACKAGING GROUP SPA

2022-02-08Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098
000104119

vs Dzhihangir Ibryam

2019-10-17Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098
000103859

vs PHOENIX IND SA

2019-07-26Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098
000011140

vs GAMMA-A, SIA

2019-02-25Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098
000011251

vs Guy Vanhoutte

2019-01-28Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098
000011250

vs Guy Vanhoutte

2019-01-28Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098
000102462

vs TURCU GEANI-CRISTIAN

2018-12-21Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098