DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006301891-0005

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-10-22

000108742

Contested design: 006301891-0005

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application against registered Community design No 006301891-0005 is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(fr)

1. La demande en nullité à l'encontre du dessin ou modèle communautaire enregistré nº 006301891-0005 est rejetée. 2. La demanderesse supporte les frais exposés par la titulaire, fixés à 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Saverglassvia PDF extraction

France (FR)

3, Rue de la Gare, 60960 Feuquières, France

Represented by

Novagraaf France

Holder · RCD owner

Discovia PDF extraction

France (FR)

Avenue des Tortulas, 16100 Merpins, France

Represented by

In Concreto

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCDannexe 1

bottle for household use

RCD No 001338115-0008 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2012-08-22

Web disclosureannexe 2⚠ rejected as evidence

MINGEI model shown on the Vetroelite website

http://www.vetroelite.com · vetroelite.com

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5Article 6Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over earlier RCD No 001338115-0008, arguing the shared bottle shape created the same overall impression.
  • The holder disputed use of additional website views for novelty, emphasized multiple differences in the neck, shoulders, ring, body and base, and argued the contested design remained new and individual.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of the earlier RCD, but found the registered designs differed in more than insignificant details, so novelty was not destroyed.
  • The Division held the common features were standard for bottles or carafes, the differing specific features created a clearly different overall impression, and the invalidity application was rejected with costs against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberJessica Norma LEWIS
  • MemberMichelle Marie DELLACHERIE
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

07.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129182

vs Guangzhou L-TEK Enterprise Co.,Ltd

2025-09-25Art 25(1)(b)077
000120871

vs Chuang-Kang Machinery Technology Co., Ltd

2025-01-16Art 25(1)(b)077
000122014

vs EDIESI SL

2023-09-07Art 25(1)(b)077
000118726

vs DAKA RESEARCH INC.

2023-04-27Art 25(1)(b)077
000119513

vs Weiming Li

2023-04-14Art 25(1)(b)077
000118241

vs Noi srl

2023-01-25Art 25(1)(b)077
000116574

vs Horizons Group (London) Limited

2022-11-16Art 25(1)(b)077
000118157

vs Qing Wang

2022-11-09Art 25(1)(b)077