Invalidity · first instance · 2021-05-25
000110381
Contested design: 005321494-0016
Outcome
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. 005321494-0016 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
Papierfabriek Doetinchem B.V.via PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
Terborgseweg 52, 7005 BB Doetinchem, Niederlande
Holder · RCD owner
Sprick GmbH Bielefelder Papier- und Wellpappenwerke & Co.
Germany (DE)
Hanfstr. 2333607 Bielefeld, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
packaging machines, paper rolls
RCD No 001457279-0001 · EUIPO eSearch / Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-03-21
packaging machines (part of)
RCD No 003507086-0001 · EUIPO eSearch / Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-03-21
packaging machines (part of)
RCD No 003507086-0002 · EUIPO eSearch / Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-03-21
packaging machines
RCD No 003507086-0003 · EUIPO eSearch / Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2017-03-21
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant argued the contested paper dispenser design lacked novelty and individual character over earlier RCDs D1 to D4 showing the same tray-and-pyramidal outlet concept.
- ›Holder replied that only the general concept overlapped, its own 2012 design already disclosed that concept, and the contested design differed in all significant details and overall impression.
- ›The Division accepted D1 to D4 as disclosed prior art, identified the informed user as familiar with manual paper dispensers, and found some but not decisive technical constraints on the designer's freedom.
- ›Comparing all visible views, the Division found major differences in tray shape, cut-outs, outlet orientation, extra ridge and semicircular features, so the contested design created a different overall impression.
- ›The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberIvanka IVANOVA
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | 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 |