DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001863739-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-10-17

000104119

Contested design: 001863739-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 001863739-0002 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 001863739-0002 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

Et Gilly Soy Distribution S.R.L.via PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

Str. Cpt. Juverdeanu no. 85, Sector 2, Bucharest, Romania

Represented by

Paula Adriana Acsinte

Holder · RCD owner

Dzhihangir Ibryam

Bulgaria (BG)

‘Ilia Blaskov’ No. 1, 7500 Silistra, Bulgaria

Represented by

Mariana Iorgulescu

Prior art cited (1)

Trade markD1

Romanian trade mark design for roasted seeds packaging

Romanian trade mark application No M 2010 05385 · Romanian State Office for Inventions and Trade Marks Official Gazette and database · disclosed 2010-07-29

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6Article 7Article 8

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on Romanian trade mark application D1 published before the contested RCD.
  • The holder argued the invalidity action was filed in bad faith, claimed the applicant had copied the holder's earlier designs, and maintained that the designs differ.
  • The Division found D1 had been disclosed, but the contested design was not identical and produced a different overall impression because several visual differences were noticeable to the informed user.
  • The invalidity grounds under Article 25(1)(b) CDR were not made out, so the application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberGaile SAKALAITÉ
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN

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

09.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000115888

vs SEDA INTERNATIONAL PACKAGING GROUP SPA

2022-02-09Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098
000115908

vs SEDA INTERNATIONAL PACKAGING GROUP SPA

2022-02-08Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098
000103859

vs PHOENIX IND SA

2019-07-26Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098
000011140

vs GAMMA-A, SIA

2019-02-25Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098
000011251

vs Guy Vanhoutte

2019-01-28Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098
000011250

vs Guy Vanhoutte

2019-01-28Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098
000102462

vs TURCU GEANI-CRISTIAN

2018-12-21Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098
000102465

vs TURCU GEANI-CRISTIAN

2018-12-21Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)098