DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007015375-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-07-16

000113301

Contested design: 007015375-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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 0070153750002 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

‘Митак’ ЕООДvia PDF extraction

Bulgaria (BG)

бул. ‘Княз Aлександър Батенберг’ 28, ет.5, офис 35, Стара Загора, Bulgaria

Represented by

Smilena Hrusanova

Holder · RCD owner

‘Милутинов Консулт’ ЕООДvia PDF extraction

Bulgaria (BG)

район р-н Люлин ж.к. Люлин, бл. 803, вх. А, ет. 3, ап. 9, 1324 гр. София, Bulgaria

Represented by

Vasko Ivanov Vasilev

Prior art cited (2)

Trade mark

figurative label mark “MITAK ДOMATEHO ПЮPE” for tomato paste

Bulgarian trade mark No 41 894 · Bulgarian Patent Office Official Bulletin

Trade mark

figurative label mark “ДOMATEHO ПЮPE M MITAK” for tomato paste

Bulgarian trade mark No 100 558 · Bulgarian Patent Office Official Bulletin

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant claimed the contested tomato-puree sticker lacked novelty and individual character and used its earlier Bulgarian trade marks, creating a likelihood of confusion.
  • Holder argued the label differed in imagery, slogan, and composition, and denied any confusing similarity with the applicant’s marks.
  • The Division found the shared elements mainly descriptive or decorative, so the Article 25(1)(e) claim failed for lack of likelihood of confusion.
  • The Division also found the earlier label designs were disclosed but produced a different overall impression, so the contested design had individual character and was not identical.
  • The invalidity application was rejected in full, with costs awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

19.08

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000113281

vs РАМИСОВ 70

2021-07-16Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)199
000129182

vs Guangzhou L-TEK Enterprise Co.,Ltd

2025-09-25Art 25(1)(b)197
000124996

vs Shenzhen Dingzhen Technology Co., Ltd.

2024-07-24Art 25(1)(b)197
000118059

vs LABEL PRINT SRL

2022-10-04Art 25(1)(b)197
000118058

vs LABEL PRINT SRL

2022-10-04Art 25(1)(b)197
000118060

vs LABEL PRINT SRL

2022-10-03Art 25(1)(b)197
000118039

vs LABEL PRINT SRL

2022-10-03Art 25(1)(b)197
000117433

vs Shenzhen Liwei Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.

2022-06-30Art 25(1)(b)197