DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007844303-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-05-10

000114481

Contested design: 007844303-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application against registered Community design No 007844303-0001 is rejected, and the applicant must bear the costs incurred by the holder.

Show verbatim operative text(fr)

1. La demande en nullité à l'encontre du dessin ou modèle communautaire enregistré nº 007844303-0001 est rejetée. 2. La demanderesse supporte les frais exposés par la titulaire.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Oxygravure SASvia PDF extraction

France (FR)

518 Avenue de Jouques, ZI Les Paluds II, 13685 Aubagne Cedex, France

Represented by

Océane Phan-Tan-Luu

Holder · RCD owner

C.T.P.S. - Customisation Textile - Produits et Service Sarl.via PDF extraction

France (FR)

200 rue Pierre et Marie Curie, 49800 Trélazé, France

Prior art cited (3)

Registered RCDAnnexe n°1

Visière antiprojection à bouton pression

DMC n°007832779-0001 · Bulletin des dessins ou modèles communautaires · disclosed 2020-05-06

Publication⚠ rejected as evidence

TF1 television report showing the applicant's protective visor model

TF1 · disclosed 2020-04-28

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

LinkedIn post by the applicant about the protective visor model

LinkedIn

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 25(1)(d)Article 4Article 5Article 6(1)Article 7

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued the contested face-shield design lacked novelty and individual character and conflicted with its earlier RCD for a cap-mounted protective visor.
  • The holder filed no observations in response.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of the earlier RCD through its EUIPO bulletin publication, but not the TF1 screenshots or LinkedIn material as sufficiently identifying disclosures.
  • Comparing only the protected solid-line features, the Division found visible curvature and configuration differences that created a different overall impression, so the invalidity claims failed.

Deciding panel

  • MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES
  • MemberJessica LEWIS
  • MemberMichelle, Marie DELLACHERIE

Decision files

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

Locarno classes

02.03

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000123916

vs Crocs, Inc.

2024-11-18Art 25(1)(b)027
000123935

vs Crocs, Inc.

2024-11-18Art 25(1)(b)027
000120862

vs Dongguan Zhicheng Lighting Co., Ltd.

2024-11-06Art 25(1)(b)027
000122914

vs JSP Limited

2024-04-25Art 25(1)(b)027
000122915

vs JSP Limited

2024-04-25Art 25(1)(b)027
000121459

vs Birkenstock IP GmbH

2024-04-09Art 25(1)(b)027
000121479

vs Birkenstock IP GmbH

2024-04-08Art 25(1)(b)027
000121478

vs Birkenstock IP GmbH

2024-04-04Art 25(1)(b)027