Invalidity · first instance · 2019-06-05
000102939
Contested design: 002767061-0001
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant is ordered to pay the holder’s costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
1. Se deniega la solicitud de declaración de nulidad del dibujo o modelo comunitario registrado nº 0027670610001. 2. Se condena al solicitante a que sufrague las costas del titular, fijadas en 400 EUR.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Dinosol Supermercados, S.L.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
c7 Luis Correa Medina nº 9 – 1ª planta, 35013 Las Palmas de Gran Canarias, España
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Andres Meseguer Lozano
Spain (ES)
calle Santa Cruz 21 Urbanización Los Vientos, 30500 Murcia/Molina de Segura, España
Represented by
María Desamparados Díaz Pachezo
Prior art cited (3)
characters for advertising / the “DINO” character family
Spanish industrial design No 515.867-05 · Boletín Oficial de la Propiedad Industrial de la Oficina Española de Patentes y Marcas · disclosed 2012-12-11
screenshots showing the “DINO” character family and images relating to Spanish design No 515.867-05
http://www.youtube.com ; http://www.facebook.com · YouTube and Facebook
screenshot from the applicant website showing the “DINO” character family and images relating to Spanish design No 515.867-05
http://www.hiperdino.es · Hiperdino website · disclosed 2013-10-09
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on an earlier Spanish design for advertising characters and related online disclosures.
- ›The holder argued the compared figures were materially different, challenged the online evidence, and maintained the contested design created a different overall impression.
- ›The Division found the earlier Spanish design had been validly disclosed through its 2012 official publication, but the compared designs were not identical.
- ›The Division also found the informed user would perceive a different overall impression because of clear differences in posture, anatomy, dorsal features, and humanized elements.
- ›The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to bear the holder’s representation costs of EUR 400.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberIngeborg MENDIETA VETTER
- MemberÁlvaro SESMA MERINO
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000107739 vs Shenzhen Sinobry Electronic Ltd | 2020-01-16 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 8 |
| 000101619 vs caresyntax GmbH | 2019-06-17 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 8 |
| 000010861 vs Adam Hall GmbH | 2018-09-28 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 8 |
| 000129183 vs Yi Duan | 2025-09-16 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 7 |
| 000124156 vs Autoelektronika Maciej Świdnicki | 2024-07-02 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 7 |
| 000121322 vs Shenzhen Hongshi Trading Co., Ltd. | 2024-02-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 7 |
| 000116928 vs Nintendo Co., Ltd. | 2022-08-31 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 7 |
| 000116470 vs SENOR TECH CO., LTD. | 2022-06-09 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 14 | 7 |