DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002277459-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-03-27

000103319

Contested design: 002277459-0001

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 0022774590001 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

Glaxo Group Limitedvia PDF extraction

United Kingdom (GB)

980 Great West Road, Brentford, Middlesex, TW8 9GS, United Kingdom

Holder · RCD owner

Polfarmex S.A.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Józefów 9, 99300 Kutno, Poland

Represented by

IntellectPol IP Law Firm

Sławomir Krzysztof Nowicki

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCD

Diskus inhaler

Community design No 0018422460001 · Austrian warning label and instructions for use

Trade mark

Earlier trade mark said to be very similar to the contested RCD

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant claimed the contested inhaler lacked individual character over several earlier designs, especially its long-marketed Diskus inhaler, and also invoked conflict with an earlier trade mark.
  • To prove disclosure, the applicant relied on evidence including an Austrian Viani mite warning label dated November 2006 showing the Diskus design and its packaging.
  • The holder filed no reply, so the Division assessed disclosure and individual character on the applicant's evidence alone.
  • The Division found the 2006 warning label sufficiently proved prior disclosure and that the contested design reproduced the distinctive overall appearance of the earlier inhaler despite minor differences.
  • The application was upheld because the contested RCD lacked individual character under Article 6(1)(b) CDR, making it unnecessary to examine the remaining prior designs or trade mark ground.

Deciding panel

  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberGaile SAKALAITE
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

24.04

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131246

vs Life Vac LLC

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000131089

vs Rongrong Gao

2026-04-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000128555

vs Juliane Hesse-Ilyas

2026-02-24REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000129035

vs OMNIOXY SPÓŁKA AKCYJNA

2025-09-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000127199

vs Xiamen Tuoke Trading Co., Ltd.

2025-03-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000125355

vs Shenzhen Sainuotong Technology Co., Ltd.

2024-10-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000125317

vs Life Vac LLC

2024-08-16REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000123775

vs Schunk Ingenieurkeramik GmbH

2024-07-24REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248