DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005618790-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-04-17

000107299

Contested design: 005618790-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity 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 005618790-0001 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

Amatopia Labels UG (haftungsbeschränkt)via PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Herdweg 45, 64285 Darmstadt, Germany

Represented by

Thomas Seidel

Holder · RCD owner

Angela Jane Hartnett

AU

27 Glenlea Drive, Maroochydore Queensland 4558, Australia

Represented by

Bringer IP

Prior art cited (7)

Web disclosureD1⚠ rejected as evidence

Reusable Stainless Steel Straw Set

ASIN B07FPXD4MV · amazon.com · disclosed 2018-07-19

Web disclosureD2⚠ rejected as evidence

Set of Four Reusable Stainless Steel Drinking Straws by Vettra

ASIN B07G5H66HJ · amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2018-08-02

Web disclosureD3⚠ rejected as evidence

8Pcs Reusable Smoothie Straws Stainless Steel Straws Set of 8

ASIN B07FC9TTP9 · amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2018-07-08

Web disclosureD4

Hydro Phil Toothbrush Travel Case Made of Bamboo

ASIN B06XXY4Z24 · amazon.de · disclosed 2016-07-20

Web disclosureD5

Premium Bamboo Toothbrush Case

ASIN B074BFV9V4 · amazon.de · disclosed 2017-07-27

Web disclosureD6

Crayons, Pencil Crayons in Tube

ASIN B06XY4SKCB · amazon.de · disclosed 2017-04-22

Web disclosureD7⚠ rejected as evidence

amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2017-03-26

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity under Article 25(1)(b), arguing the straw-and-case design lacked novelty and individual character over cylindrical cases disclosed on Amazon.
  • The holder argued parts of the case were procedurally inadmissible, several disclosures post-dated the claimed priority, and the cited toothbrush and pencil cases created a different overall impression.
  • The Division rejected late-filed new grounds and D8, found D1 to D3 and D7 unproven as prior disclosures, but accepted D4 to D6 as disclosed before the priority date.
  • Comparing D4 to D6 with the contested design, the Division found the straw element, slimmer proportions, and lid differences sufficient for individual character and novelty, so the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberKelly BENNETT

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

03.0107.06

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131529

vs Berentzen-Gruppe Aktiengesellschaft

2026-03-24Art 25(1)(b)037
000116446

vs Yuanzong An

2022-02-01Art 25(1)(b)037
000108421

vs SEMIR RAAD MAROKI

2021-01-14Art 25(1)(b)077
0001082012020-09-24Art 25(1)(b)037
000108311

vs SEMIR RAAD MAROKI

2020-07-17Art 25(1)(b)077
000108346

vs SEMIR RAAD MAROKI

2020-07-17Art 25(1)(b)077
0001078392020-05-29Art 25(1)(b)077
0001074192020-03-11Art 25(1)(b)037