DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004422343-0012

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-05-20

000103059

Contested design: 004422343-0012

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 004422343-0012 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

S. TOUS, S.L.

Spain (ES)

Carretera de Vic, El Guix, 3, 08243 Manresa (Barcelona), Spanien

Represented by

Baylos

Holder · RCD owner

Zhejiang China-Best Import & Export Co., Ltdvia PDF extraction

China (CN)

17 Th Floor, Maotai Century Building, 83, Zhonghe North Road, Hangzhou, Volksrepublik China

Represented by

Yu Lin

Prior art cited (3)

National design⚠ rejected as evidence

part of a set of jewellery figures

Spanish industrial design No. 135.127-A · OEPM · disclosed 1995-07-01

Trade markD1

figurative mark depicting a seated teddy bear

EUTM No. 1 755 636 · EUIPO · disclosed 2001-03-19

Trade markD2

figurative mark showing the outline of a seated teddy bear

EUTM No. 8 127 128 · EUIPO · disclosed 2009-09-21

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 6(1)Article 7Article 25(1)(e)Article 9(2)(b)Article 9(2)(c)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character and unauthorized use of earlier TOUS teddy-bear rights, relying on a Spanish design, two EUTMs, and reputation evidence.
  • The holder filed no observations.
  • The Division accepted D1 and D2 as earlier disclosed designs but found the contested lamp's standing teddy-bear silhouette and 3D lamp features created a different overall impression.
  • For Article 25(1)(e), the goods were dissimilar and similarity to the reputed TOUS marks was too weak to create confusion or a mental link. The application was rejected and the applicant owed EUR 400.

Deciding panel

  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

26.05

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000106699

vs Shenzhen Juku Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.

2020-05-19Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000104419

vs Lukas Staffen

2019-11-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000102399

vs INTAV S.R.L.

2019-08-09Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000101440

vs KARE Design GmbH

2019-07-09Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000104899

vs Daxtor ApS

2019-05-22Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000102099

vs LIQUIDLEDS LIGHTING CORP

2019-03-08Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000011220

vs HANGZHOU CHENGYUE ELECTRON& ELECTRIC CO.., LTD.

2019-02-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268
000011221

vs HANGZHOU CHENGYUE ELECTRON& ELECTRIC CO.., LTD.

2019-02-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)268