DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004697357-0023

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-04-01

000103379

Contested design: 004697357-0023

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 004697357-0023 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

Cabinet @Mark

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 (2)

CatalogD1⚠ rejected as evidence

Beau Rivage bowl in the Beau Rivage glassware collection

Duralex 1999 · Duralex catalogue

CatalogD2

Beau Rivage bowl in the Beau Rivage glassware collection

The glassware catalogue 2006 · Duralex catalogue

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested bowl lacked novelty and individual character because its Beau Rivage bowls had been marketed since 1987 and submitted a technical drawing and dated catalogues.
  • The holder filed no observations and did not contest the applicant's evidence or arguments.
  • The Division accepted the catalogues as proof that the Beau Rivage bowl designs were disclosed before the filing date, but excluded D1 from the merits comparison because its reproduction was too poor to show all essential features.
  • Comparing the contested RCD with D2, the Division found the same contours and a very similar spiral surface pattern; minor differences in rim waves and colour shade did not alter the overall impression, so the design lacked individual character.

Deciding panel

  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

07.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131632

vs DETECTALIA EUROPE, S.L.U.

2026-05-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000129741

vs 2W ORGANIC

2026-05-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131788

vs Liu Xiaoxia

2026-05-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131628

vs Shenzhen Changhe Technology Co., Ltd

2026-04-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131704

vs Shenzhen Changhe Technology Co., Ltd

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131745

vs Huan Wang

2026-04-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000130924

vs SOHAI HOUSEWARES CO.,LTD.

2026-04-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131546

vs Foshan Changyuansheng Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-03-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078