DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001470041-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-10-26

000111261

Contested design: 001470041-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 001470041-0001 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Zakład Produkcji Folii Efekt Plus Sp. z o. o.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Złota 44/334, 00-120 Warszawa, Poland

Represented by

Kancelaria Prawa Patentowego Tadeusz Ostrzychowski

Tadeusz Ostrzychowski

Holder · RCD owner

Folpol Robert Barzyk, Jacek Cyganvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Mikołaja Reja 6, 05-532 Wólka Załęska, Poland

Prior art cited (2)

Prior useAnnexes 1-17⚠ rejected as evidence

stretch film with folded edges / overlaps at the edges allegedly offered and sold by the applicant

machine seller invoice and statement, website printouts, invoices, and sample foil

PatentAnnex 18

Stretch film having heat-sealed edges (figure 3)

EP 1 095 759 · European Patent Office patent database; Bulletin 2001/18 · disclosed 2001-05-02

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 5(1)Article 7(1)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the contested stretch-film design lacked novelty over its earlier foil disclosures and EP 1 095 759, and that the edge overlaps were solely technically dictated.
  • No holder observations or defence are recorded in the decision text.
  • The Division found the technical-function attack unproven because the applicant did not show the foil shape and overlap proportions were chosen solely for function.
  • Annexes 1-17 did not sufficiently prove disclosure of a prior design, while the patent disclosure was accepted but not identical to the contested RCD.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to bear the holder's costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberMichelle Marie DELLACHERIE

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

05.06

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131724

vs Shenzhen Shuangzhi E-commerce Co., Ltd.

2026-04-22Art 25(1)(b)057
000130181

vs Shenzhen Zongyuan Technology Co., Ltd

2025-11-24Art 25(1)(b)057
000121025

vs FOLPOL ROBERT BARCZYK, JACEK CYGAN

2024-03-05Art 25(1)(b)057
000110988

vs FOLPOL ROBERT BARCZYK, JACEK CYGAN

2021-04-21Art 25(1)(b)057
000111021

vs FOLPOL ROBERT BARCZYK, JACEK CYGAN

2021-04-21Art 25(1)(b)057
000131631

vs Shenzhen Shuangzhi E-commerce Co., Ltd.

2026-04-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)055
000131630

vs Shenghui Wei

2026-04-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)055
000127715

vs Meirong Huang

2025-05-23Art 25(1)(b)055