DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003373083-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-03-04

000105119

Contested design: 003373083-0001

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 003373083-0001 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

Aldi Stores Limited

United Kingdom (GB)

Holly Lane, Atherstone, Warwickshire CV9 2SQ, United Kingdom

Represented by

Freeths LLP

Holder · RCD owner

Hydratem8 Limitedvia PDF extraction

United Kingdom (GB)

Unit 6, Five Oaks Business Park, Geddinge Lane, Wootton, Near Canterbury CT4 6RY, United Kingdom

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureD1

article showing a water bottle and decal

https://gigglesgalore.net · gigglesgalore.net · disclosed 2015-05-26

Trade markD2⚠ rejected as evidence

bottle design shown in a US trademark record

US registered trademark No 5009743 · United States trademark record

Web disclosureD3

Motivational Bottle offered on Amazon

ASIN B00ZS8CKG6 · Amazon.com · disclosed 2015-06-16

Web disclosureD4

water bottle graphic offered on Etsy

https://www.etsy.com · Etsy · disclosed 2016-05-27

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character, relying on four earlier bottle graphics allegedly disclosed before the RCD filing date.
  • Holder argued the contested design created a different overall impression, some features were technically constrained, and design protection covers visual appearance rather than concept.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of D1, D3 and D4, rejected D2 as insufficiently proven, and found designer freedom limited only for fluid-level indication features.
  • Differences in font, layout and level-indicating devices gave a different overall impression, so the application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberMichelle Marie DELLACHERIE

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
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
000011193

vs VAN DER HAEGEN & NECKEBROECK, bvba

2019-07-19Invalidity 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