DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000009097-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-11-23

000010734

Contested design: 000009097-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder’s costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 000009097-0002 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

US 7,665,608 B2 · US patent

Patent

display package for articles such as eggs

EP 1 373 100 B1 · European patent

Patent

egg package patent

PL 200 629 B1 · Polish patent

CatalogD1

Brødrene Hartmann fact sheet for '1x10 imagic® E 9910' egg packaging

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

PublicationD2

summary of market report

Global Egg Packaging Market 2016-2020 · businesswire.com

PublicationD3

annual report excerpt

Huhtamaki 2013 Annual Accounts and Directors' Report · Huhtamaki

PublicationD4

article 'Huhtamaki’s extensive range of egg packaging solutions'

Poultry Digest, April/May 2010, page 44 · Poultry Digest

CatalogD5

Brødrene Hartmann flyer 'Good reasons for using moulded fibre egg packaging'

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

CatalogD6

egg carton data sheets of OMNI-PAC GmbH, Celluloses de la Loire and Huhtamaki

online materials

Web disclosureD7

website page on 'Technical Egg packaging Information'

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

Web disclosureD8

website page on 'imagic®' egg packaging

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

PublicationD9

MOBA packaging producer specifications

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

PublicationD10

STAALKAT packaging producer specifications

PD Eggtrays Guidelines · STAALKAT

Web disclosureD11

website page 'NestPack – The premium'

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

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the egg-carton design lacked protection because its essential features were solely dictated by technical function, relying on patents and packaging-machine compatibility requirements.
  • Holder replied that the overall form had visual individuality, the cited patents did not dictate the exact appearance, and the same functions could be achieved through different designs.
  • The Division found the evidence showed egg-carton producers also compete through shape and appearance, so the contested design’s features were not shown to be chosen only for technical reasons.
  • It also found machine specifications left room for different packaging shapes; the invalidity application was therefore rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

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