Invalidity · first instance · 2020-12-18
000107019
Contested design: 002149500-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application against the contested RCD is rejected and the applicant must pay 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 002149500-0001 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
Indini Deutschland GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Anton-Klux-Straße 2, 41460 Neuss, Allemagne
Represented by
Alexander Hasshoff
Holder · RCD owner
Kenzovia PDF extraction
France (FR)
18 rue Vivienne, 75002 Paris, France
Represented by
Prior art cited (16)
Figurative mark showing a roaring tiger head
EUTM No 7 185 424 · EU Trade Marks Bulletin
Figurative mark showing a roaring tiger head
EUTM No 252 052 · EU Trade Marks Bulletin
Figurative mark showing a roaring tiger head
EUTM No 4 947 891 · EU Trade Marks Bulletin
Figurative mark showing a roaring tiger head
EUTM No 5 899 505 · EU Trade Marks Bulletin
Ed Hardy tiger motif printed on a T-shirt
Flickr · Flickr · disclosed 2007-11-14
Tigers REUNION tiger motif printed on a T-shirt
Flickr · Flickr
Northern TIGERS tiger motif printed on a sweatshirt
Flickr · Flickr · disclosed 2008-09-25
APOLLO TIGRE tiger motif printed on a sweatshirt
Flickr · Flickr · disclosed 2010-04-25
Challenger tiger motif printed on a T-shirt
Flickr · Flickr · disclosed 2010-10-12
Tiger motif printed on a T-shirt
Flickr · Flickr · disclosed 2009-03-10
Tiger motif printed on a T-shirt
Flickr · Flickr · disclosed 2009-12-25
Live roaring tiger photographed in a zoo
Roaring tiger motif photographed on a British combat helicopter
disclosed 2007-07-15
Sports club logo featuring a roaring tiger head
Flickr · Flickr · disclosed 2008-01-22
Sports club logo featuring a roaring tiger head
disclosed 2008-11-20
Sports club logo featuring a roaring tiger head
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant argued that the contested roaring tiger head was merely a copy of nature and, in any event, lacked individual character over earlier tiger-head marks, clothing motifs and sports logos.
- ›Holder replied that the design was a stylised, symmetrical creative work, that use in the registered form was irrelevant, and that the cited earlier designs differed materially.
- ›The Division rejected the Article 3(a) claim, accepted only the earlier registered marks and one Flickr sports logo as proven disclosures, and found the cited designs visually much rougher and more contrasted than the contested thin-line stylised tiger head.
- ›No earlier design destroyed the contested design's individual character, so the invalidity application was rejected.
Deciding panel
- MemberMichelle Marie DELLACHERIE
- MemberJessica LEWIS
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000117028 vs Kai Collective Ltd | 2023-07-13 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 32 | 7 |
| 000117000 vs Kai Collective Ltd | 2023-07-13 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 32 | 7 |
| 000117001 vs Kai Collective Ltd | 2023-07-13 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 32 | 7 |
| 000116999 vs Kai Collective Ltd | 2023-07-13 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 32 | 7 |
| 000117047 vs Kai Collective Ltd | 2023-07-13 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 32 | 7 |
| 000116998 vs Kai Collective Ltd | 2023-07-13 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 32 | 7 |
| 000105119 vs C&G Household Products Limited | 2020-03-04 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 32 | 7 |
| 000011193 vs VAN DER HAEGEN & NECKEBROECK, bvba | 2019-07-19 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 32 | 7 |