DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003447291-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-09-28

000105080

Contested design: 003447291-0003

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 0034472910003 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

Henkell Freixenet Polska Spółka z o.o.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Mazowiecka 48, 87100 Toruń, Poland

Holder · RCD owner

Ami Honey Sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Brazylijska 16B/2, 03946 Warszawa, Poland

Prior art cited (3)

Trade mark⚠ rejected as evidence

figurative EUTM for a 'Nalewka Babuni' alcoholic-beverage label

EUTM No 15 722 143 · EUIPO trade mark register · disclosed 2016-11-15

Trade mark

figurative Polish trade mark 'Nalewka Babuni' for tincture and alcoholic beverages

Polish trade mark No 134215 · Polish Patent Office / TMview · disclosed 2002-01-24

Trade mark⚠ rejected as evidence

figurative Polish trade mark for alcoholic-beverage labels

Polish trade mark No 148035 · Polish Patent Office / TMview · disclosed 2003-09-08

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(e)Article 10(2)(a)Article 10(2)(b)Article 25(1)(f)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested label used the shape, layout, colours and 'Nalewka' element of its earlier marks and copied copyright-protected 'Nalewka Babuni' labels under Polish law.
  • The holder replied that the EUTM was not earlier, the national marks were unused and dissimilar, and the applicant had not proved ownership, priority or protectable originality of the invoked copyrights.
  • The Division found only Polish mark No 134215 qualified as a valid earlier sign, but the shared elements were descriptive or commonplace and the remaining similarities created no likelihood of confusion.
  • It also held the applicant failed to prove or delimit most copyright works and that the substantiated Dragon Rouge cherry label was not reproduced in protectable aspects, so the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
  • 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

19.08

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000105081

vs Ami Honey Sp. z o. o.

2020-09-28Art 25(1)(f), Art 25(1)(e)199
000105059

vs Ami Honey Sp. z o. o.

2020-09-28Art 25(1)(f), Art 25(1)(e)197
000105082

vs Ami Honey Sp. z o. o.

2020-09-28Art 25(1)(f), Art 25(1)(e)197
000105079

vs Ami Honey Sp. z o. o.

2020-09-28Art 25(1)(f), Art 25(1)(e)197
000123280

vs EMANUEL-CORNELIU DOBRONĂUȚEANU

2024-05-28REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(e)195
000123281

vs EMANUEL-CORNELIU DOBRONĂUȚEANU

2024-05-28REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(e)195
000113281

vs РАМИСОВ 70

2021-07-16Art 25(1)(e)195
000113301

vs РАМИСОВ 70

2021-07-16Art 25(1)(e)195