DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005887007-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-12-11

000109102

Contested design: 005887007-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 005887007-0001 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Westenhorst GmbH & Co. KGvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Paulsburg 1-3, 59302 Oelde, Deutschland

Represented by

Bird & Bird LLP

Holder · RCD owner

MBG Holding GmbH

Germany (DE)

Oberes Feld 13, 33106 Paderborn, Deutschland

Represented by

Baker & Mckenzie

Prior art cited (1)

Trade markD1

three-dimensional bottle shape mark for a beverage bottle

EUTM No 8 485 121; DE marks No 30 2008 040 066 and No 30 2008 040 067 · EUIPO eSearch database / Union trade mark publication · disclosed 2009-11-09

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6(1)Article 7Article 25(1)(e)Article 9(2)(b)Article 9(2)(c)

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over prior bottle design D1 and also relied on earlier trademark rights under Article 25(1)(e).
  • Holder argued the contested bottle created a different overall impression, denied any likelihood of confusion with the earlier marks, and requested a stay pending mark cancellation actions.
  • The Division found only D1 was properly identified and disclosed before the filing date, but the contested bottle differed in shape, shoulders, proportions, decorations, and especially surface structure, so it had individual character and novelty.
  • The Division also found the earlier bottle mark had weak inherent distinctiveness, the signs were only barely visually similar, no enhanced distinctiveness or reputation was proved, and the invalidity application was rejected in full.

Deciding panel

  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload 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
0001116212021-04-20REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)099
0001116012021-04-20REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)099
000109641

vs FICOSOTA FOOD EAD

2020-09-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)099
000011144

vs COSCENTRA B.V.

2018-09-18REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)099
000011143

vs COSCENTRA B.V.

2018-09-18REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)099
000011142

vs COSCENTRA B.V.

2018-09-18REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)099
000010930

vs SC VIKING INTERNATIONAL SRL

2018-08-31REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)099
000131325

vs HaoJun Zhu

2026-05-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)097