Invalidity · first instance · 2021-09-22
000114491
Contested design: 006064135-0002
Outcome
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 0060641350002 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
SC Unicarm SRLvia PDF extraction
Romania (RO)
Principala Street nr 314, Jud. Satu Mare, 447355 Vetis, Romania
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, Romania
Represented by
Elena Grecu
Prior art cited (4)
ornamentation for packaging, graphic prints and printing motifs
RCD No 0027506530003 · Community Design Bulletin · disclosed 2015-08-19
ornamentation for packaging, graphic prints and printing motifs
RCD No 0027506530006 · Community Design Bulletin · disclosed 2015-08-19
ornamentation for packaging, graphic prints and printing motifs
RCD No 0027506530007 · Community Design Bulletin · disclosed 2015-08-19
ornamentation for packaging, graphic prints and printing motifs
RCD No 0027506530008 · Community Design Bulletin · disclosed 2015-08-19
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued the contested design lacked novelty and individual character over four earlier RCDs showing wood-like patterns and also invoked Article 25(1)(e) CDR.
- ›The holder argued the contested design differed in shape, colour, and pattern, had individual character, and that earlier designs are not distinctive signs under Article 25(1)(e) CDR.
- ›The Invalidity Division held that designs cannot constitute distinctive signs for Article 25(1)(e) CDR and accepted the four earlier RCDs only as prior designs disclosed through bulletin publication.
- ›The Division found the contested three-dimensional board created a different overall impression from the earlier two-dimensional wood-pattern designs and was also new.
- ›The application was rejected in full, and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's representation costs fixed at EUR 400.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000114490 vs CRIS-TIM COMPANIE DE FAMILIE SRL | 2021-09-21 | — | 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 |