DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003850601-0029

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-01-14

000108421

Contested design: 003850601-0029

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0038506010029 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

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 Romania, 031203 Bucharest, Romania

Holder · RCD owner

Semir Raad Marokivia PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

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

Represented by

Claudia Monica Frisch

Prior art cited (4)

Prior use⚠ rejected as evidence

alleged earlier mug/product referenced in import, transport, invoice and affidavit evidence

ATL 04 AB · Pyramid Glass Company S.A.E.

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

glass dish product page with product No 1132 / KIG bf9d

http://goldglass.ro · goldglass.ro

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

plate listing with product No 1132 / kig-bf-9d

https://emag.ro · emag.ro

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

product listing with identifier BF-8D

https://kigegypt.com · kigegypt.com

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, claiming the contested dish had been sold and shown online for years before filing.
  • Holder argued the internet links and supporting documents were not solid, objective proof of disclosure under Article 7 CDR.
  • The Division found the invoices, transport and affidavit evidence did not identify a clear earlier design, and the web printouts were undated or untranslated.
  • Because prior disclosure was not proven, the Article 25(1)(b) claim failed and the application was rejected with costs against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
  • MemberJessica LEWIS

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
000108311

vs SEMIR RAAD MAROKI

2020-07-17Art 25(1)(b)077
000108346

vs SEMIR RAAD MAROKI

2020-07-17Art 25(1)(b)077
0001078392020-05-29Art 25(1)(b)077
000107299

vs Angela Jane Hartnett

2020-04-17Art 25(1)(b)077
000129481

vs Oro-Kong GmbH

2026-05-27Art 25(1)(b)075
000129483

vs Oro-Kong GmbH

2026-05-26Art 25(1)(b)075
000129503

vs Oro-Kong GmbH

2026-05-26Art 25(1)(b)075
000129484

vs Oro-Kong GmbH

2026-05-26Art 25(1)(b)075