DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003850601-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-11-06

000109061

Contested design: 003850601-0002

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's fixed costs of EUR 350.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 003850601-0002 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the applicant's costs, fixed at EUR 350.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €350

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

SC Gold Glass SRLvia PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

Str. Lt. Col. Dumitru Papazoglu, Nr. 60, Et.2, Ap. 10, Sector 3, 031203 Bucharest, Romania

Holder · RCD owner

Semir Raad Marokivia PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

str. Faurei nr. 5, bloc C9, sc. C, ap. 82, Bucuresti, Romania

Represented by

Claudia Monica Frisch

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosure

transparent glass bowl with decorative cut pattern

https://www.facebook.com/amerandgold/photos/pcb.741699179332479/741698039332593/?type=3&theater · Facebook commercial platform account “Amber Glass & Gold glass” · disclosed 2017-02-26

Catalog

Amber Glass & Gold glass catalogue showing the same glass bowl design

Amber Glass & Gold glass catalogue (2016/2017)

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on an earlier glass bowl design disclosed on Facebook and in a 2016/2017 catalogue.
  • The holder disputed solid proof of disclosure and argued any disclosure fell within the Article 7 exception because the relevant circles would not reasonably have known of it.
  • The Division found the Facebook posts and catalogue provided solid, mutually corroborating evidence of prior disclosure and the holder offered no facts undermining that showing.
  • Comparing the bowls, the Division held their shape and decorative cut patterns created the same overall impression on the informed user despite minor pattern differences and a bottom view.
  • The application was upheld, the contested design was declared invalid for lack of individual character, and costs were awarded against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN

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

07.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131632

vs DETECTALIA EUROPE, S.L.U.

2026-05-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000129741

vs 2W ORGANIC

2026-05-12REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131788

vs Liu Xiaoxia

2026-05-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131628

vs Shenzhen Changhe Technology Co., Ltd

2026-04-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131704

vs Shenzhen Changhe Technology Co., Ltd

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131745

vs Huan Wang

2026-04-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000130924

vs SOHAI HOUSEWARES CO.,LTD.

2026-04-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078
000131546

vs Foshan Changyuansheng Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-03-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)078