Invalidity · first instance · 2019-07-26
000103859
Contested design: 005236445-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's fixed costs of EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 005236445-0001 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
Croco SRL
Romania (RO)
Str. Slanicului nr. 12, Onesti, judetul Bacau, 601110 Onesti, Romania
Represented by
Irina Albusel
Holder · RCD owner
PHOENIX IND SA
Romania (RO)
Str. Mercur, Nr. 56, Jud. Braila, Braila, Romania
Represented by
Elena Grecu
Prior art cited (2)
Phoenix biscuit packaging design disclosed through the holder's website, Facebook profile, and a press article
Facebook, phoenix-biscuiti.ro, and a press article
food packaging design with the word 'Croco' and a crocodile figurative element
design registration No 020 292 · Official Industrial Property Bulletin - Designs and Models Section No 2/2013
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant alleged lack of novelty and individual character based on Phoenix packaging disclosures in a press article, Facebook posts, and archived website material, and also invoked conflict with its earlier Romanian design No 020 292.
- ›The holder argued the cited Phoenix disclosures were its own or authorised disclosures within the Article 7(2) grace period and maintained that the earlier Croco design created a different overall impression.
- ›The Division held Annex 4 could not support Articles 5 and 6 because those disclosures came from or were authorised by the holder within the 12-month grace period, and it also doubted the reliability of the press article extract.
- ›Comparing the contested RCD with the earlier Romanian design, the Division found only remote similarities and several clear differences in colours, cookies, banners, verbal elements, and figurative elements, so there was no conflict under Article 25(1)(d).
- ›The invalidity application was rejected, and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in representation costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
- MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
- MemberKelly BENNETT
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000126496 vs Jiangmen Xinhui Zhenghua Ironware Co., Ltd. | 2025-03-07 | — | Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 9 |
| 000114705 vs Albert Ungrad | 2022-03-17 | — | Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 9 |
| 000114489 vs Hangzhou XiangHui International Trading Co., Ltd. | 2021-07-27 | — | Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 9 |
| 000115888 vs SEDA INTERNATIONAL PACKAGING GROUP SPA | 2022-02-09 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000115908 vs SEDA INTERNATIONAL PACKAGING GROUP SPA | 2022-02-08 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000104119 vs Dzhihangir Ibryam | 2019-10-17 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000011149 vs Fratelli Martini Secondo Luigi S.p.A. | 2019-03-20 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(d) | 09 | 8 |
| 000011140 vs GAMMA-A, SIA | 2019-02-25 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |