DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008263115-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-08-03

000114943

Contested design: 008263115-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 008263115-0001 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

Antonio Puig, S.Avia PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Plaza Europa, 46-48, 08902, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain

Represented by

Plasseraud IP

Holder · RCD owner

Zou Chunliang

China (CN)

BLDG21 2T-502, Yunshan County, Congyun Road, Baiyun District,Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China

Represented by

Isabelle Bertaux

Prior art cited (3)

International designDesign 1

female torso-shaped bottle

International design registration No DM/024377, design No 1 · WIPO International Register · disclosed 1993-01-29

National designDesign 2

female torso-shaped bottle

Swedish design registration No M 55 597 · Swedish design register · disclosed 1994-05-11

Trade mark

female torso-shaped bottle mark

French three-dimensional trade mark registration No 92 440 690 · French INPI · disclosed 1992-12-18

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character over two earlier bottle designs and for conflict with an earlier French three-dimensional trade mark.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of the earlier designs and the existence of the earlier mark, but found the contested bottle created a different overall impression on the informed user.
  • The Division also found no likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark because visual differences outweighed the low conceptual similarity, despite identical bottles.
  • The application was rejected in full and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ

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

09.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000114621

vs SELEX TRADING

2022-08-16Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)099
000114521

vs CRIS-TIM COMPANIE DE FAMILIE SRL

2021-09-08Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)099
000114926

vs Zou Chunliang

2021-08-05Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)099
000010730

vs BEVERAGES Mark Limited

2018-06-08Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)099
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
000118717

vs "СИ ЕН ДЖИ ТРАК БЪЛГАРИЯ" ООД

2024-05-24Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)097
000119700

vs Guohua He

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