DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004375525-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-07-23

000108463

Contested design: 004375525-0002

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay EUR 750 in costs.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 0043755250002 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 canned food products in square jars

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

Web disclosure

article with image of two holder-branded square chutney jars

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

Web disclosure

offer for holder-branded chutney in a square jar

https://www.mestoskidki.ru · mestoskidki.ru · disclosed 2015-09-22

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the jar lacked novelty and individual character because holder-branded square jars had already been disclosed online before the filing date.
  • The holder disputed reliable disclosure, claimed the prior images were insufficient for comparison, and argued market saturation and technical constraints made small shape differences decisive.
  • The Division accepted the two Russian website disclosures, rejected the Google image search as proof of disclosure, and found no evidence that the sector was crowded enough to change the informed user’s perception.
  • Comparing the contested jar with the accepted prior design, the Division found the overall impressions the same and invalidated the RCD for lack of 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