DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003851252-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-12-19

000102461

Contested design: 003851252-0004

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 003851252-0004 is rejected. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Tri Star Ltd

UA

Polevaya str. 5, Cherniakhovka village, Kirovograd region, Cherniakhovka, Ukraine

Represented by

Lupsa si Asociatii

Ionut Lupsa

Holder · RCD owner

Ionel-Alin Nitavia PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

Sos. Oltenitei, 133, bl.55 sc. 1, ap. 4, Bucuresti, Romania

Represented by

Ruxandra Raluca Ardeleanu

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureAnnex 1⚠ rejected as evidence

printout showing small images of the applicant's confectionery packaging products

gieldaspozywcza.pl · website gieldaspozywcza.pl · disclosed 2013-03-31

PublicationAnnexes 2-9⚠ rejected as evidence

website article excerpts about fairs and exhibitions showing the applicant's products

various websites

Web disclosureAnnex 10⚠ rejected as evidence

social media printouts showing the applicant's packaging as used in trade

VK · VK social media portal · disclosed 2015-03-05

Web disclosureAnnex 11⚠ rejected as evidence

social media printouts containing images of the applicant's packaging

www.facebook.com · Facebook · disclosed 2015-11-25

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for bad faith and for lack of novelty and individual character based on its earlier confectionery packaging disclosed since 2013 in trade, exhibitions, websites, VK, and Facebook.
  • Holder filed no observations in reply.
  • The Division held bad faith inadmissible because it is not an Article 25(1) invalidity ground.
  • The Division found the annexes did not objectively prove prior disclosure under Article 7(1) because the images were unclear, dates and circumstances were unsupported, and social media posts lacked corroboration.
  • The application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ

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