DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004697357-0029

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-04-01

000103439

Contested design: 004697357-0029

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld and Registered Community design No 004697357-0029 is declared invalid.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 004697357-0029 is declared invalid.

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 (4)

Other⚠ rejected as evidence

Technical drawing of the applicant's 'Beau Rivage' 25 cl glass.

disclosed 1996-10-29

CatalogD1

Glass from the 'Beau Rivage' collection shown in the applicant's 'Duralex 1999' catalogue.

Duralex 1999 catalogue

CatalogD2

Glass from the 'Beau Rivage' collection shown in the applicant's 'The glassware catalogue 2006'.

The glassware catalogue 2006

CatalogD3

Glass from the 'Beau Rivage' collection shown in the applicant's 'Les collections 2012' catalogue.

Les collections 2012

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested glass lacked novelty and individual character because its Beau Rivage glass had been marketed since 1987 and was shown in earlier catalogues.
  • The holder filed no observations or evidence in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division accepted the catalogues D1 to D3 as public disclosures before the filing date, but treated the technical drawing as proof of existence rather than public disclosure.
  • Given the designer's broad freedom for glasses, the contested design reproduced the prior glass's contours and surface pattern and created no different overall impression.
  • The application was upheld, the RCD was declared invalid for lack of individual character, and the holder was ordered to pay EUR 750 in costs.

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