Invalidity · first instance · 2021-02-04
000110341
Contested design: 006432092-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 006432092-0001 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
Puig France, Société par Actions Simplifiéevia PDF extraction
France (FR)
65-67 avenue des Champs Elysées, 75008 Paris, France
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Rockwood Spirits International Inc.
CA
21-5480 Canotek Road, Ottawa Ontario K1J 9H7, Canada
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
3D trade mark for perfumery products
EUTM No 11 653 102 · Community Trade Marks Bulletin · disclosed 2013-04-17
atomizers for perfumes [except packaging]
RCD No 0008701260001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2008-08-01
Bottle of Paco Rabanne 1 Million After-Shave Lotion 100 ml
billiger.de; amazon.co.uk; Internet Archive Wayback Machine · billiger.de; amazon.co.uk; Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2008-09-17
Bottle of Paco Rabanne 1 Million Cologne Eau de Toilette Spray 125 ml
sephora.fr; amazon.co.uk; Internet Archive Wayback Machine · sephora.fr; amazon.co.uk; Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2015-03-13
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant attacked the contested bottle for lack of novelty and individual character based on one EUTM, one earlier RCD, and two prior web-disclosed Paco Rabanne bottle designs.
- ›Holder argued the extra web evidence should be disregarded, the perfume-bottle disclosures were irrelevant or insufficient, and the contested whisky bottle created a different overall impression.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure of all four prior designs but found the contested bottle was not identical to any of them and differed in proportions, transparent/opaque composition, decoration, and sharp contours.
- ›The invalidity grounds under Article 25(1)(b) CDR failed, so the application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000127595 vs Shenzhen Beipengxing Technology Co., Ltd | 2025-04-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000126496 vs Jiangmen Xinhui Zhenghua Ironware Co., Ltd. | 2025-03-07 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000119700 vs Guohua He | 2023-10-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000119221 vs Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo | 2023-10-22 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000121263 vs MIESZKO S.A. | 2023-10-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000121319 vs MIESZKO S.A. | 2023-10-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000121318 vs MIESZKO S.A. | 2023-10-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000121320 vs MIESZKO S.A. | 2023-10-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |