Invalidity · first instance · 2020-10-01
000110102
Contested design: 002836858-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the proprietor is ordered to bear costs fixed at EUR 750.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 002836858-0001 is declared invalid. 3. Orders the proprietor to bear the costs incurred by the applicant, which are fixed at EUR 750.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Looplabb B.V.via PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
oud Blaricumerweg 48, 1411 JT Naarden, Netherlands
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Izipizivia PDF extraction
France (FR)
19, rue de Calais, 75009 Paris, France
Prior art cited (3)
Online article in Merci about SEE Concept and its self-service reading-glasses concept.
https://www.mercimerci.com/fr/journal/rencontre-avec-see-concept/ · Merci website · disclosed 2014-01-22
YouTube videos showing spectacle packaging boxes with coloured eyeglasses and SEE Concept branding.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJIhRE84btE; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXeKr5Paj5o · YouTube · disclosed 2014-03-03
Website screenshot showing a spectacle packaging box with blue glasses on the box front.
https://hayinstyle.com/2014/05/15/seeconcept-colette-fashionable-reading-glasses/ · hayinstyle.com · disclosed 2014-05-15
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, arguing the contested packaging box matched earlier SEE Concept spectacle-packaging disclosures.
- ›The holder filed no observations in reply and left the invalidity claims undefended.
- ›The Division accepted the YouTube screenshots as sufficient disclosure of an earlier packaging design made available before the filing date.
- ›Given the designer’s broad freedom, the shared size, drawer opening, black tongue, white front, and glasses graphic created the same overall impression.
- ›The application was upheld and the contested design was declared invalid for lack of individual character.
Deciding panel
- MemberJessica Norma LEWIS
- MemberMichelle Marie DELLACHERIE
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000131325 vs HaoJun Zhu | 2026-05-13 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000131965 vs Jiaxing Xiaotian Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. | 2026-05-07 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000130985 vs Suzhou Hongmao Import & Export Trade Co.,Ltd | 2026-03-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000130944 vs Shenzhen Tajinxuan Trading Co.,Ltd. | 2026-02-13 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000130968 vs Shenzhen Zhimei Chuangke E-commerce Co., Ltd. | 2026-02-05 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000129539 vs MOHAMAR JAMOU | 2026-01-14 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000130088 vs Mindful eCom OÜ | 2025-12-15 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000129281 vs VERONIKI ECOGRUP SRL | 2025-11-04 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |