DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004066413-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-03-15

000010883

Contested design: 004066413-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's fixed costs of EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 0040664130001 is declared invalid. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Mada Sweet Adam Pawłowskivia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Polna 7, 26026 Morawica, Poland

Holder · RCD owner

TREBOR Robert Bilkiewiczvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Obrońców Wybrzeża 25 B/107, 80398 Gdańsk, Poland

Prior art cited (5)

PatentD1

mixer

United States patent No 1,201,284 · United States patent · disclosed 1916-10-17

PublicationD2

article depicting a cocktail shaker design

Who Made That Cocktail Shaker? · New York Times Magazine online · disclosed 2014-09-05

Web disclosureD3

photo titled 'Bartender preparing cocktail in Martini glass and a shaker'

istockphoto.com · istockphoto.com · disclosed 2013-10-03

Web disclosureD4

YouTube screenshot depicting a shaker

youtube.com · YouTube · disclosed 2015-08-13

Web disclosureD5

Amazon offer for Cresimo 24-Ounce Stainless Steel Martini Cocktail Shaker and Jigger with Cocktail Recipes EBook (4 Piece Set)

amazon.com · Amazon.com · disclosed 2015-10-24

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued the contested lollipop-container design lacked novelty and individual character over earlier shaker disclosures, especially D2, and that designer freedom was virtually unlimited.
  • The holder argued the cited designs were not identical, created different overall impressions, belonged to different product sectors, and the differences would be noticed by the informed user.
  • The Division treated later bad-faith and copyright allegations as inadmissible, accepted D2 as sufficiently disclosed under Article 7(1), and rejected novelty because the differences were not immaterial.
  • The Division found the overall shapes almost identical, the differences minor given virtually unlimited designer freedom, and concluded the contested RCD lacked individual character and had to be invalidated.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
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
000131325

vs HaoJun Zhu

2026-05-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000131965

vs Jiaxing Xiaotian Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-05-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130985

vs Suzhou Hongmao Import & Export Trade Co.,Ltd

2026-03-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130944

vs Shenzhen Tajinxuan Trading Co.,Ltd.

2026-02-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130968

vs Shenzhen Zhimei Chuangke E-commerce Co., Ltd.

2026-02-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000129539

vs MOHAMAR JAMOU

2026-01-14REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130088

vs Mindful eCom OÜ

2025-12-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000129281

vs VERONIKI ECOGRUP SRL

2025-11-04REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098