DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007021225-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-07-21

000113261

Contested design: 007021225-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's fixed costs of EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 007021225-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

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 (1)

Prior use

Earlier disclosed seal cap used on the applicant's tomato paste jar.

MITAK tomato paste 700g / code 380002781010 · Bulgarian market; invoices and product webpage on randi.bg · disclosed 2018-08-23

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested seal-cap design was identical or highly similar to its earlier cap used on MITAK tomato paste jars and therefore lacked individual character.
  • The holder replied that the applicant's evidence did not prove earlier disclosure of a comparable design and that undated photos or invoices without images could not establish the claimed prior design.
  • The Division found the invoices, contract material, and randi.bg product page sufficient together to prove prior disclosure of the applicant's cap before the October 2019 filing date.
  • Comparing only the protected top view of the caps, the Division held that the shared colour scheme, central green verbal element, red underline, and overall arrangement created the same overall impression.
  • The application was upheld because the contested design lacked individual character under Article 6(1)(b) CDR and was therefore declared invalid.

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

09.07

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131325

vs HaoJun Zhu

2026-05-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000131965

vs Jiaxing Xiaotian Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-05-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130985

vs Suzhou Hongmao Import & Export Trade Co.,Ltd

2026-03-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130944

vs Shenzhen Tajinxuan Trading Co.,Ltd.

2026-02-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130968

vs Shenzhen Zhimei Chuangke E-commerce Co., Ltd.

2026-02-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000129539

vs MOHAMAR JAMOU

2026-01-14REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130088

vs Mindful eCom OÜ

2025-12-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000129281

vs VERONIKI ECOGRUP SRL

2025-11-04REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098