Invalidity · first instance · 2018-12-06
000010751
Contested design: 002694349-0001
Outcome
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 002694349-0001 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
Luv n’ care, Ltd.
United States (US)
3030 Aurora Avenue, Monroe, Louisiana 71201, United States of America
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Lindsey Laurain
United States (US)
17011 Lincoln Ave. # 434, Parker 80134, United States of America
Represented by
Prior art cited (8)
applicant's 'three piece oval plate' shown in its catalogue
Product ID 5220 · applicant catalogue corroborated by affidavit of Mr De Vriendt
compartmented plate invention
US 2002/0040906 A1 · US Patent and Trademark Office · disclosed 2002-04-11
design patent for a compartmented plate
US D562,078 S · US Patent and Trademark Office · disclosed 2008-02-19
plate design called 'Yumi Tumi Plate'
Yumi Tumi Plate · babychic101.com · disclosed 2008-02-01
compartmented feeding plate design shown on Alibaba
http://szhe.en.alibaba.com · Alibaba · disclosed 2010-10-07
compartmented feeding plate offered on Amazon
amazon.com product listing · Amazon · disclosed 2013-11-25
single-compartment plate-and-mat design
www.yankodesign.com · Yanko Design · disclosed 2007-07-09
two-plate pet-feeding mat design
www.moderndogmagazine.com / www.mydoglikes.com · Modern Dog Magazine / MyDogLikes / Total Pet Expo · disclosed 2014-10-09
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested placemat-and-plate design lacked novelty and individual character because its essential features were already disclosed in earlier catalog, patent, and internet materials.
- ›The applicant also said the integration of mat and plate was purely functional under Article 8(1); the holder disputed the applicant's feature analysis and stressed differences from each cited design.
- ›The Division found the Article 8(1) challenge unsupported by reliable evidence and held that several cited exhibits were not valid prior disclosures or were too unclear for comparison.
- ›After comparing each accepted earlier design individually, the Division found material differences and concluded that the contested RCD retained individual character, so the application was rejected with costs to the holder.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
- MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000107779 vs ANJI WEIYU FURNITURE CO., LTD. | 2020-04-03 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 8 |
| 000105800 vs Next Retail Limited | 2020-04-02 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 8 |
| 000108302 vs INTER LINK SAS | 2020-01-20 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 8 |
| 000101539 vs Soma Group d.o.o. | 2019-07-05 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 8 |
| 000101480 vs Soma Group d.o.o. | 2019-07-05 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 8 |
| 000101520 vs Soma Group d.o.o. | 2019-07-05 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 8 |
| 000102339 vs Syzan Sp. z o.o. | 2019-04-25 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 8 |
| 000102859 vs Syzan Sp. z o.o. | 2019-04-25 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 8 |