DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003521053-0015

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-07-19

000011193

Contested design: 003521053-0015

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 003521053-0015 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Calitex S.A.

France (FR)

70, rue de Douai, 59405 Cambrai Cedex, France

Represented by

David Lefranc

Holder · RCD owner

Van Der Haegen & Neckebroeck, BVBAvia PDF extraction

Belgium (BE)

Pamelstraat Oost 450, 9400 Ninove, Belgium

Represented by

Christian Defauw

Prior art cited (1)

Prior use⚠ rejected as evidence

plastic tablecloth design allegedly disclosed through a Chinese catalogue, Canton Fair presentation, and subsequent offers and sales

TB 1638 / Fond Marin · Jiangsu Star Dream Household Products / Manhing Plastics / Canton Fair / applicant emails and sales materials · disclosed 2016-09-20

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5Article 6Article 7(1)Article 7(2)Article 7(3)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and later lack of individual character, relying on the earlier TB 1638 or Fond Marin tablecloth design allegedly disclosed before the RCD filing date.
  • The holder said it had commissioned the design earlier, only authorized manufacture, and argued the applicant's evidence showed unauthorized disclosures, unreliable catalogue material, and no qualifying public disclosure.
  • The Division held the alleged manufacturer transfers and later offers or sales fell under confidentiality and grace-period exceptions, and the catalogue evidence did not reliably prove availability to relevant EU circles.
  • Because prior disclosure under Article 7 was not proven, the Division did not examine novelty or individual character further and rejected the invalidity application.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

32.00

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000105119

vs C&G Household Products Limited

2020-03-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)328
000011061

vs SOFIDEL S.P.A.

2018-12-19Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)328
000011060

vs SOFIDEL S.P.A.

2018-12-18Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)328
000010617

vs Naketano GmbH

2018-10-16Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)328
000010546

vs CRISTIAN PETROVICI

2018-07-10Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)328
000010730

vs BEVERAGES Mark Limited

2018-06-08Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)328
000116999

vs Kai Collective Ltd

2023-07-13Art 25(1)(b)327
000117028

vs Kai Collective Ltd

2023-07-13Art 25(1)(b)327