DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003237197-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-02-16

000110042

Contested design: 003237197-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity 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. 0032371970002 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

LieBee GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Neue Promenade 5, 10178 Berlin, Deutschland

Holder · RCD owner

Göbber GmbH

Germany (DE)

Bahnhofstr. 40, 27324 Eystrup, Deutschland

Prior art cited (4)

Registered RCDD1

Gläserhalter für Getränke [ausgenommen Spender], Schalen

RCD No. 000979075-0009 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2008-09-05

Registered RCDD2

Gläser(Trink-), Gläserhalter für Getränke [ausgenommen Spender]

RCD No. 000979075-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2008-09-05

CatalogD3⚠ rejected as evidence

transparentes Glas, im Katalog der Weck Glaswerk GmbH abgebildet

Article 969 · Weck Glaswerk GmbH, "Verpackungsglas/Containerjaws Katalog 2015"

International designD4⚠ rejected as evidence

transparenter Glas-Körper

International Design No. 00048054-0010 · international design register · disclosed 1999-08-31

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 6(1)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character over earlier RCDs D1 and D2 and later invoked D3 and D4 as additional prior designs.
  • The holder argued the contested jar design was new and had individual character, and that D3 and D4 were raised too late and in any event gave a different overall impression.
  • The Division held D3 and D4 inadmissible because they were not pleaded in the original invalidity application, but accepted D1 and D2 as properly disclosed prior designs.
  • Comparing the contested design with D1 and D2, the Division found the thread, upper indentation, material transparency, and overall construction created a different overall impression, so the invalidity application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberClaudia SCHLIE

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload 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
000129182

vs Guangzhou L-TEK Enterprise Co.,Ltd

2025-09-25Art 25(1)(b)077
000120871

vs Chuang-Kang Machinery Technology Co., Ltd

2025-01-16Art 25(1)(b)077
000122014

vs EDIESI SL

2023-09-07Art 25(1)(b)077
000118726

vs DAKA RESEARCH INC.

2023-04-27Art 25(1)(b)077
000119513

vs Weiming Li

2023-04-14Art 25(1)(b)077
000118241

vs Noi srl

2023-01-25Art 25(1)(b)077
000116574

vs Horizons Group (London) Limited

2022-11-16Art 25(1)(b)077
000118157

vs Qing Wang

2022-11-09Art 25(1)(b)077