DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 007655378-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-07-23

000115263

Contested design: 007655378-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application against the contested RCD is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(fr)

1. La demande en nullité à l'encontre du dessin ou modèle communautaire enregistré nº 007655378-0001 est rejetée. 2. La demanderesse supporte les frais exposés par la titulaire, fixés à 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Saverglass Société par actions simplifiéevia PDF extraction

France (FR)

3, rue de la Gare, 60960 Feuquières, France

Represented by

Novagraaf France

Holder · RCD owner

I. Distilling & Co Société par actions simplifiéevia PDF extraction

France (FR)

33 Chemin d'Olivet, 16200 Réparsac, France

Represented by

Inlex IP Expertise

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCDD1

bottle

DMC nº 002621763-0001 · Bulletin des dessins ou modèles communautaires · disclosed 2015-01-30

Web disclosureD2

DISTIL’ER 70 cl bottle as marketed

http://www.saverglass.com / https://web.archive.org · saverglass.com captured by Internet Archive · disclosed 2015-03-12

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character over earlier bottle designs D1 and D2 and also invoked unauthorized use of a French copyright-protected work.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of earlier RCD D1 and the marketed DISTIL’ER bottle D2, but found the contested bottle's floral decoration, green base effect, relief, and label recesses created a different overall impression.
  • The copyright ground also failed because the applicant did not submit the French legal texts or case law cited and did not prove the originality of the earlier bottle model.
  • The invalidity application was rejected in full, and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES
  • MemberJessica LEWIS
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ

Decision files

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

Locarno classes

09.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000127595

vs Shenzhen Beipengxing Technology Co., Ltd

2025-04-15Art 25(1)(b)097
000126496

vs Jiangmen Xinhui Zhenghua Ironware Co., Ltd.

2025-03-07Art 25(1)(b)097
000119700

vs Guohua He

2023-10-29Art 25(1)(b)097
000119221

vs Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo

2023-10-22Art 25(1)(b)097
000121263

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121319

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121318

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121320

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097