Invalidity · first instance · 2021-09-08
000114521
Contested design: 006064044-0001
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity of Registered Community Design No 006064044-0001 is rejected. The applicant must bear the holder's costs, fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(fr)
1. La demande en nullité du dessin ou modèle communautaire enregistré no 006064044-0001 est rejetée. 2. Le demandeur supporte les frais exposés par le titulaire, fixés à 400 EUR.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Unicarm SRLvia PDF extraction
Romania (RO)
Principala Street nr. 314, Jud. Satu Mare, 447355 VetIS, Roumanie
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Cris-Tim Company De Familie SRLvia PDF extraction
Romania (RO)
Sat Filipestii De Padure, Com. Filipestii De Padure, Str. Garii, Nr.661, Corp C8, Birou E.03, et.1, judet Prahova Filipestii De Padure, Roumanie
Represented by
Elena Grecu
Prior art cited (4)
wood-like packaging decoration / graphic print / print motif
DMC 002750653-0003 · Bulletin des dessins ou modèles communautaires · disclosed 2015-08-19
wood-like packaging decoration / graphic print / print motif
DMC 002750653-0006 · Bulletin des dessins ou modèles communautaires · disclosed 2015-08-19
wood-like packaging decoration / graphic print / print motif
DMC 002750653-0007 · Bulletin des dessins ou modèles communautaires · disclosed 2015-08-19
wood-like packaging decoration / graphic print / print motif
DMC 002750653-0008 · Bulletin des dessins ou modèles communautaires · disclosed 2015-08-19
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued the contested food-packaging design was unclear as a design, lacked novelty and individual character over four earlier RCDs, and improperly used protected distinctive signs.
- ›The holder replied that the registration clearly showed a single packaging design, that its overall impression differed from the cited wood-pattern designs, and that earlier designs were not distinctive signs under Article 25(1)(e).
- ›The Division found the representation clear and precise for food packaging, so the Article 25(1)(a) ground failed; it also held earlier designs are not distinctive signs for Article 25(1)(e).
- ›After accepting disclosure of the four earlier RCDs, the Division found the contested design produced a different overall impression and was not identical, so it retained individual character and novelty; the invalidity application was rejected.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ELIŠOVÁ
- MemberRebecca Santana Davies
- MemberBenjamin VAN Bavel
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000114621 vs SELEX TRADING | 2022-08-16 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | 09 | 9 |
| 000115907 vs SEDA INTERNATIONAL PACKAGING GROUP SPA | 2022-02-09 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 09 | 9 |
| 000115908 vs SEDA INTERNATIONAL PACKAGING GROUP SPA | 2022-02-08 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 09 | 9 |
| 000114926 vs Zou Chunliang | 2021-08-05 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | 09 | 9 |
| 000114943 vs Zou Chunliang | 2021-08-03 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | 09 | 9 |
| 000115122 vs DUHAMEL SEBASTIEN | 2021-07-12 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a) | 09 | 9 |
| 000010730 vs BEVERAGES Mark Limited | 2018-06-08 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | 09 | 9 |
| 000127595 vs Shenzhen Beipengxing Technology Co., Ltd | 2025-04-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |