DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003059641-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-12-10

000010612

Contested design: 003059641-0001

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

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 003059641-0001 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

Refan Bulgaria OODvia PDF extraction

Bulgaria (BG)

Karlovsko shose, 52, Trud, Bulgaria

Represented by

IP Consulting Ltd.

Ivan Nikolov Ivanov

Holder · RCD owner

Fionna Cosmetics EOODvia PDF extraction

Bulgaria (BG)

7, Bulgaria Blvd., fl.7, app.7, 1408 Sofia, Bulgaria

Represented by

Vasil Pavlov Pavlov

Prior art cited (2)

Trade markTM1

3D flower blossom mark

Bulgarian trade mark No 0086121 · Bulgarian Patent Office bulletin/register

Trade markTM2

3D flower blossom mark

Bulgarian trade mark No 0078008 · Bulgarian Patent Office bulletin/register

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(a)Article 3(a)Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6(1)Article 7Article 25(1)(e)

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity under Articles 25(1)(b) and 25(1)(e), arguing the soap-bar design lacked novelty and individual character and used its earlier Bulgarian 3D flower trade marks; it also invoked Article 25(1)(a).
  • Holder said the Article 25(1)(a), novelty, individual-character and trade mark claims were insufficiently reasoned, stressed visual differences, challenged the national-law basis, and requested proof of use for one earlier mark.
  • The Division found the Article 25(1)(a) ground inadmissible, accepted the earlier trade marks as disclosed, but held the contested design was neither identical to nor produced the same overall impression as the earlier marks.
  • It also found only low similarity and low distinctiveness for the earlier flower-blossom marks, no likelihood of confusion under Article 25(1)(e), and therefore rejected the application with costs against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ

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
000010869

vs REFAN BULGARIA EOOD

2018-10-31Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)288
000010870

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