DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004495281-0018

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-03-26

000011080

Contested design: 004495281-0018

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

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

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 004495281-0018 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Allergan Holdings France SAS

France (FR)

12, Place de la Defense, 92400 Courbevoie, France

Holder · RCD owner

Dermavita Company ltdvia PDF extraction

LB

Corniche Mazraa, General Street, Al Jichy Building (Lebanon Gulf Bank) – 4th Floor, Beirut, Lebanon

Represented by

Krasimira Kadieva

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCD

logos; graphic symbols and logos; surface patterns; ornamentation

RCD No 002689687-0001 · Office designs bulletin · disclosed 2015-05-06

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested logo design lacked novelty and individual character over the holder's earlier RCD No 002689687-0001 and over prior use of the plain word 'JUVEDERM'.
  • The holder argued that the informed user was highly attentive, minor differences were sufficient, and the proceedings should be stayed because related trade mark and invalidity actions were pending.
  • The Division refused a stay, found broad designer freedom for logos, and held that the added 'HI-TECH' rectangle was secondary to the dominant elliptical 'JUVEDERM' element shared by both designs.
  • The contested RCD created the same overall impression as the earlier design, lacked individual character under Article 6(1)(b) CDR, and was declared invalid.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberÁlvaro SESMA MERINO

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload 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
000011068

vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd

2019-03-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a), Art 25(1)(e)3212
000011084

vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd

2019-03-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a), Art 25(1)(e)3212
000011081

vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd

2019-03-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a), Art 25(1)(e)3212
000011077

vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd

2019-03-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a), Art 25(1)(e)3212
000011067

vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd

2019-03-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a), Art 25(1)(e)3212
000011072

vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd

2019-03-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a), Art 25(1)(e)3212
000011075

vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd

2019-03-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a), Art 25(1)(e)3212
000011074

vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd

2019-03-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a), Art 25(1)(e)3212