Invalidity · first instance · 2021-09-21
000114490
Contested design: 006064135-0001
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity against registered Community design No 006064135-0001 is rejected, and the applicant is ordered to pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
1. Se desestima la solicitud de declaración de nulidad del modelo comunitario registrado n.º 006064135-0001. 2. Se condena al solicitante a que sufrague las costas del titular, fijadas en 400 EUR.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
SC Unicarm SRLvia PDF extraction
Romania (RO)
Principala Street nr. 314, Jud. Satu Mare, 447355 VetIS, Rumanía
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Cris-Tim companie 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, Rumanía
Represented by
Elena Grecu
Prior art cited (4)
ornamentation for packaging, printed graphics and print motifs
RCD No 002750653-0003 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-08-19
ornamentation for packaging, printed graphics and print motifs
RCD No 002750653-0006 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-08-19
ornamentation for packaging, printed graphics and print motifs
RCD No 002750653-0007 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-08-19
ornamentation for packaging, printed graphics and print motifs
RCD No 002750653-0008 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2015-08-19
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over four earlier RCDs and also invoked Article 25(1)(e), arguing the contested design reproduced protected distinctive signs.
- ›The holder replied that the contested design was new and had individual character, and that the earlier designs were not distinctive signs incorporated into the contested RCD.
- ›The Division held Article 25(1)(e) inapplicable because earlier designs are not distinctive signs for that ground, and accepted the four earlier RCDs as disclosed prior art under Article 7.
- ›Comparing overall impressions, the Division found visible differences in contour, color and wood pattern, so the contested design had 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000114491 vs CRIS-TIM COMPANIE DE FAMILIE SRL | 2021-09-22 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | 20 | 9 |
| 000010742 vs Manfred Ezel | 2018-12-06 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 20 | 7 |
| 000010552 vs Waldemar Małyska | 2018-06-20 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 20 | 7 |
| 000010563 vs Waldemar Małyska | 2018-06-19 | Invalidity application rejected | Art 25(1)(b) | 20 | 7 |
| 000119359 vs TECH LIVING LIMITED | 2023-06-12 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | — | 6 |
| 000120199 vs William Huang | 2023-05-30 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | — | 6 |
| 000114621 vs SELEX TRADING | 2022-08-16 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | — | 6 |
| 000115207 vs ELWEDYS | 2021-11-05 | — | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | — | 6 |