DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002692673-0005

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-08-20

000111461

Contested design: 002692673-0005

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay EUR 750 in costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0026926730005 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

A.L.B. S.P.A.via PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Località Monti di Deu, 07029 Tempio Pausania (SS), Italy

Holder · RCD owner

Harrogate Spring Water Ltd

United Kingdom (GB)

Harlow Moor Road, Harrogate, North Yorkshire HG2 0QB, United Kingdom

Represented by

Lewis Silkin Ireland

Prior art cited (2)

Trade markAnnex 6 / attachment 6

3D bottle design used for Smeraldina water

Italian trade mark registration No 1 051 146 · 9/03 Italia Imballaggio newsletter

PublicationAnnex 1 / attachment 10

Bottle design marketed from the applicant's KRONES AG-commissioned preparatory works

7-8/14 Italia Imballaggio newsletter · Italia Imballaggio newsletter

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, arguing the contested water-bottle design copied its earlier faceted Smeraldina bottle designs disclosed since 2003 and 2014.
  • The holder said the applicant relied on imprecise and crowded prior art, that functional constraints limited bottle design freedom, and that the differences in shape, waist, and pattern created a different overall impression.
  • The Invalidity Division treated bad-faith and unfair-advantage allegations as irrelevant under Article 25(1)(b) CDR and assessed the case on disclosed prior designs and overall impression.
  • It found the accepted prior bottle design disclosures and the contested design conveyed the same overall impression despite a crowded sector and some waist-pattern differences, so the contested design lacked individual character.
  • The application was upheld, the design was declared invalid, and costs were awarded against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI

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
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