DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001819558-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-02-25

000011140

Contested design: 001819558-0002

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

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0018195580002 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

Dovgan GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Zinkhüttenweg 6, 22113 Hamburg, Germany

Represented by

Harmsen Utescher

Holder · RCD owner

Gamma-A Siavia PDF extraction

LV

Meža iela 4a, 1048 Riga, Latvia

Represented by

Sia Deloitte Latvia

Prior art cited (2)

Unregistered CDD1⚠ rejected as evidence

packaging for sprats in a glass jar labelled "Sprotai"

email from UAB Provit Industrija

Unregistered CDD2⚠ rejected as evidence

"Memel Sprotten" packaging in a 250 g glass jar

sample handover, sales offers, and website printout

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6Article 7Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over unregistered designs D1 and D2 and argued that the jar features were solely technically dictated.
  • Holder disputed any proven pre-filing public disclosure, argued the packaging was not purely functional, and also challenged the authority of the signatory to the application.
  • The Division held that the affidavits, internal emails, contractual addendum, customer offers, and website printout did not objectively prove public disclosure of D1 or D2 before the RCD filing date.
  • Because no earlier design was proven disclosed under Article 7 CDR, the invalidity grounds failed and the application was rejected with costs against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG
  • MemberJose Antonio GARRIDO OTAOLA

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
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
000102465

vs TURCU GEANI-CRISTIAN

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