Invalidity · first instance · 2019-04-01
000102999
Contested design: 004697357-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld; RCD No 004697357-0001 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 004697357-0001 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
Duralex International
France (FR)
7, rue du Petit Bois, 45380 La Chapelle Saint Mesmin, France
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Ștefania-Lăcrămioara Bociuvia PDF extraction
Romania (RO)
Sec 1, Str. Făurei Nr. 5, Bl. C9, Sc. C, Ap. 82, Bucharest, Romania
Represented by
Claudia Monica Frisch
Prior art cited (4)
technical drawing of the applicant's 22.5 cm 'Beau Rivage' bowl
disclosed 1987-04-15
'Beau Rivage' bowl shown in the applicant's catalogue
Duralex 1999 · Duralex catalogue
'Beau Rivage' bowl shown in the applicant's catalogue
The glassware catalogue 2006 · Duralex catalogue
'Beau Rivage' bowl shown in the applicant's catalogue
Les collections 2012 · Duralex catalogue
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity under Article 25(1)(b), arguing that the bowl lacked novelty and individual character because similar Beau Rivage bowls had been marketed since 1987 and appeared in catalogues and a technical drawing.
- ›The holder filed no observations and did not contest the alleged earlier disclosures or the invalidity grounds.
- ›The Division found the technical drawing did not prove public disclosure, but accepted the 1999, 2006 and 2012 catalogues as showing earlier Beau Rivage bowl designs made available to the public before filing.
- ›Comparing the contested bowl with D2 and D3, the Division held that the shared contours and spiral surface pattern dominated and that the differences in glass appearance and rim waves did not change the overall impression.
- ›The contested RCD lacked individual character under Article 6 and was declared invalid, with costs fixed against the holder.
Deciding panel
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberBirgit FILTENBORG
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000131632 vs DETECTALIA EUROPE, S.L.U. | 2026-05-12 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 8 |
| 000129741 vs 2W ORGANIC | 2026-05-12 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 8 |
| 000131788 vs Liu Xiaoxia | 2026-05-08 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 8 |
| 000131628 vs Shenzhen Changhe Technology Co., Ltd | 2026-04-30 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 8 |
| 000131704 vs Shenzhen Changhe Technology Co., Ltd | 2026-04-29 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 8 |
| 000131745 vs Huan Wang | 2026-04-21 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 8 |
| 000130924 vs SOHAI HOUSEWARES CO.,LTD. | 2026-04-17 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 8 |
| 000131546 vs Foshan Changyuansheng Technology Co., Ltd. | 2026-03-26 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 07 | 8 |