DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003851252-0005

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-12-21

000102462

Contested design: 003851252-0005

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's fixed costs of EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 003851252-0005 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

Website printout with small images of the applicant's packaging products.

gieldaspozywcza.pl · gieldaspozywcza.pl

Web disclosureAnnexes 2-9⚠ rejected as evidence

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

Various websites referring to fairs and exhibitions in Ukraine and Germany

Web disclosureAnnex 10⚠ rejected as evidence

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

VK · VK

Web disclosureAnnex 11⚠ rejected as evidence

Facebook printouts with 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 5Article 6Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the holder registered the contested packaging design in bad faith after a business relationship and that earlier disclosures since 2013 destroyed novelty and individual character.
  • Holder filed no observations in reply.
  • The Division held bad faith is not an available invalidity ground under Article 25(1) CDR and found the annexes did not objectively prove a prior design disclosure under Article 7(1) CDR.
  • Because prior disclosure was not established, the Division did not assess novelty or individual character further and rejected the application.

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
000011250

vs Guy Vanhoutte

2019-01-28Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098
000011251

vs Guy Vanhoutte

2019-01-28Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098
000102465

vs TURCU GEANI-CRISTIAN

2018-12-21Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098