DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004558674-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-10-28

000111262

Contested design: 004558674-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant’s costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 004558674-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Hell Energy Magyarország Kft.via PDF extraction

Hungary (HU)

Andrássy út 126., 1062 Budapest, Hungary

Holder · RCD owner

Ksgran Events Ltdvia PDF extraction

United Kingdom (GB)

68 King William Street, London EC4N 7DZ, United Kingdom

Represented by

Włodzimierz Januszkiewicz

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosureD1

energy drink can design depicted in CanMuseum and Facebook posts

CanMuseum.com and Facebook posts by Devil Energy · disclosed 2013-08-05

Web disclosureD2⚠ rejected as evidence

energy drink can design corresponding to the contested RCD

Facebook, Instagram and signs.pl · disclosed 2017-07-26

Trade markAnnex 12

HELL ENERGY

EUTM No 014 749 253 · registration certificate

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over earlier can designs and also invoked a conflicting HELL ENERGY trade mark.
  • The holder challenged the reliability of the internet evidence, argued D1 created a different overall impression, and said D2 fell within the grace period.
  • The Division accepted the internet evidence for D1, treated D2 as originating from the holder and excluded it under the grace period, and found broad designer freedom for can ornamentation.
  • It held that D1 produced the same overall impression on the informed user, upheld invalidity under Article 25(1)(b) with Articles 4 and 6 CDR, and did not examine the remaining grounds.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberBirgit CESSY FILTENBORG

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

09.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131325

vs HaoJun Zhu

2026-05-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000131965

vs Jiaxing Xiaotian Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-05-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130985

vs Suzhou Hongmao Import & Export Trade Co.,Ltd

2026-03-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130944

vs Shenzhen Tajinxuan Trading Co.,Ltd.

2026-02-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130968

vs Shenzhen Zhimei Chuangke E-commerce Co., Ltd.

2026-02-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000129539

vs MOHAMAR JAMOU

2026-01-14REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130088

vs Mindful eCom OÜ

2025-12-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000129281

vs VERONIKI ECOGRUP SRL

2025-11-04REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098