DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002437178-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-12-19

000011061

Contested design: 002437178-0004

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)

La domanda di dichiarazione di nullità del disegno/modello comunitario registrato n. 0024371780004 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)

National designD1

toilet paper ornament

Russian design No 69119 · Russia · disclosed 2009-02-16

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and, in the alternative, individual character over earlier Russian design D1 for toilet paper ornamentation.
  • The holder argued the compared designs differed materially, especially the flowers versus hearts and the framed white square present only in D1.
  • The Division accepted D1 as a prior disclosure under Article 7 because it had been published in the Russian design bulletin before the contested RCD filing date.
  • The Division found the visual differences were not irrelevant for novelty and produced a different overall impression despite broad design freedom for paper ornaments.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to reimburse EUR 400 in representation 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
000011060

vs SOFIDEL S.P.A.

2018-12-18Invalidity 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