Invalidity · first instance · 2021-02-04
000110361
Contested design: 006432092-0002
Outcome
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 006432092-0002 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)
bottle shape 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 / Wayback Machine · billiger.de, amazon.co.uk and 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 / Wayback Machine · sephora.fr, amazon.co.uk and Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2015-03-13
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on four earlier bottle-related designs, including an EUTM, an RCD and two internet-disclosed Paco Rabanne bottles.
- ›Holder argued the web evidence should be excluded, perfume-bottle disclosures were outside the relevant sector, and the contested bottle differed in proportions, materials, contours and decoration.
- ›The Division found all four earlier designs sufficiently disclosed under Article 7(1) CDR and considered them part of the relevant design corpus for bottles.
- ›The Division found the prior designs neither identical nor producing the same overall impression; the contested bottle's proportions, transparent and opaque parts, sharp contours and ornament preserved individual character.
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 |