DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004375525-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-07-23

000108462

Contested design: 004375525-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must bear costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 0043755250001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

‘Sladak Med’ EOODvia PDF extraction

Bulgaria (BG)

18, ‘Sv. Kiril i Metodii’ Str., Office 9, 5800 Pleven, Bulgaria

Represented by

Ivanka Pakidanska

Holder · RCD owner

Олинеза Премиум ООДvia PDF extraction

Bulgaria (BG)

ул. ‘София’ 9, 2230 Костинброд, Bulgaria

Represented by

Kostadin Manev

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

search results showing holder-branded square jars

Google image search for 'олинеза' limited to dates before 31/08/2016 · Google Images

Web disclosure

article dated 09/03/2016 showing two holder-branded square chutney jars

http//:www.conservatsia.ru · conservatsia.ru · disclosed 2016-03-09

Web disclosure

offer for sale showing a holder-branded square chutney jar

https//:www.100sp.ru · 100sp.ru · disclosed 2015-11-17

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the jar lacked novelty and individual character because holder-branded square jars had already been disclosed online before the filing date.
  • Holder disputed the reliability and accessibility of the Russian internet evidence and argued curved sides, rounded corners, market saturation, and technical constraints created a different overall impression.
  • The Division accepted the two Russian website disclosures, rejected Google image search as sufficient proof of disclosure, and found the prior-design depictions clear enough for comparison.
  • It held the designer had sufficient freedom in the jar's overall shape and that the contested jar created the same overall impression as the earlier disclosed jar, so the RCD lacked individual character.

Deciding panel

  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO

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

09.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131325

vs HaoJun Zhu

2026-05-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000131965

vs Jiaxing Xiaotian Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-05-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130985

vs Suzhou Hongmao Import & Export Trade Co.,Ltd

2026-03-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130944

vs Shenzhen Tajinxuan Trading Co.,Ltd.

2026-02-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130968

vs Shenzhen Zhimei Chuangke E-commerce Co., Ltd.

2026-02-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000129539

vs MOHAMAR JAMOU

2026-01-14REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130088

vs Mindful eCom OÜ

2025-12-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000129281

vs VERONIKI ECOGRUP SRL

2025-11-04REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098