DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002437178-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-12-18

000011060

Contested design: 002437178-0002

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(it)

1. La domanda di dichiarazione di nullità del disegno/modello comunitario registrato n. 0024371780002 è respinta. 2. La richiedente sopporta l’onere delle spese sostenute dalla titolare, fissate a 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Essity Operations Francevia PDF extraction

France (FR)

Boulevard Victor Hugo 151-161, 93400 Saint Ouen, Francia

Represented by

Hoyng Rokh Monegier Aarpi

Sophie Micallef

Holder · RCD owner

Sofidel S.p.A.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Via di Lucia 23, 55016 Porcari (LU), Italia

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCDD1

toilet paper ornament

RCD No 000280342-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested paper-product ornament lacked novelty and, alternatively, individual character over earlier RCD D1 because the same repeating motif was reproduced and the differences were negligible.
  • The holder replied that the dotted background, heart-shaped central motif, and different orientation of the repeating elements created marked visual differences that the informed user would notice.
  • The Division accepted publication of D1 as sufficient proof of prior disclosure, but found the compared designs were neither identical nor productive of the same overall impression because of the dotted background, heart-versus-flower motif, and resulting contrast effects.
  • It concluded that the invalidity grounds under Article 25(1)(b) CDR failed, rejected the application, and ordered the applicant to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberJose Antonio GARRIDO OTAOLA
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG
  • MemberJessica LEWIS

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
itItalianoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

32.00

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000105119

vs C&G Household Products Limited

2020-03-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)328
000011193

vs VAN DER HAEGEN & NECKEBROECK, bvba

2019-07-19Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)328
000011061

vs SOFIDEL S.P.A.

2018-12-19Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)328
000010617

vs Naketano GmbH

2018-10-16Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)328
000010546

vs CRISTIAN PETROVICI

2018-07-10Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)328
000010730

vs BEVERAGES Mark Limited

2018-06-08Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)328
000116999

vs Kai Collective Ltd

2023-07-13Art 25(1)(b)327
000117028

vs Kai Collective Ltd

2023-07-13Art 25(1)(b)327