DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005650546-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-09-30

000107959

Contested design: 005650546-0003

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 0056505460003 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

Henkel AG & Co. KGaAvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

IP Department (CLI), Henkelstrasse 67, 40589 Düsseldorf, Germany

Represented by

Jörg Schmidt

Holder · RCD owner

Reckitt Benckiser Finish B.V.

Netherlands (NL)

Siriusdreef 14, 2132 WT Hoofddorp, Netherlands

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCD

dosage packaging for washing agents

RCD No 0036197170010 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2019-05-07

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(d)Article 10

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the contested capsule conflicted with its earlier RCD because both designs shared the same four-compartment rotating arrangement and thus the same overall impression.
  • Holder argued designer freedom was constrained by film-forming production limits and that the contested monodose capsule's compact circular form and softer compartments created a different impression.
  • The Division accepted the earlier RCD as prior protected design, disregarded its dotted outer contour and the contested design's decoration, and found designer freedom only partly limited.
  • It held that differences in compartment shape, compact circular profile and overall configuration outweighed the shared central compartment and rotational arrangement, so no conflict existed.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in holder representation costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL

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

07.05

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000107943

vs Reckitt Benckiser Finish B.V.

2020-09-30Art 25(1)(d)077
000107960

vs Reckitt Benckiser Finish B.V.

2020-09-30Art 25(1)(d)077
000107942

vs Reckitt Benckiser Finish B.V.

2020-09-30Art 25(1)(d)077
000107941

vs Reckitt Benckiser Finish B.V.

2020-09-30Art 25(1)(d)077
000107944

vs Reckitt Benckiser Finish B.V.

2020-09-30Art 25(1)(d)077
000011046

vs Shenzhen Nuoyuekeer technology co., LTD

2018-11-06Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(d)077
000127856

vs TOP SALE SPÓŁKA Z OGRANICZONĄ ODPOWIEDZIALNOŚCIĄ

2025-12-10Art 25(1)(d)075
000129182

vs Guangzhou L-TEK Enterprise Co.,Ltd

2025-09-25075