DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008438477-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-09-22

000115384

Contested design: 008438477-0004

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

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

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0084384770004 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Domain Menada EOODvia PDF extraction

Bulgaria (BG)

Business Park Sofia 1, bl. 4, fl. 2, Sofia, Bulgaria

Represented by

Deyan Vulchev Ivanov

Holder · RCD owner

Nuvo Konsept EOODvia PDF extraction

Bulgaria (BG)

бул. Ал.Дондуков № 57, вх. А, ет. 1, ап. 6, 1000 София, Bulgaria

Represented by

Atanas Kostov

Prior art cited (2)

Catalog

2L beverage bottle for an alcoholic beverage

https://issuu.com/proomo-romania/docs/mcc_romania_mp24_oferte_alimentare · issuu.com · disclosed 2012-11-29

Web disclosure

2L beverage bottle for an alcoholic beverage

news-eustache-muriel.blogspot.com/2013/07/concurs-unirea-si-sankt-petersburg-2013.html · news-eustache-muriel.blogspot.com

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on an earlier 2L alcoholic-beverage bottle disclosed in a 2012 METRO catalogue and a Romanian weblog.
  • The holder argued the application lacked legal basis because no identical or same-overall-impression design had been disclosed and the applicant had not properly compared the designs.
  • The Division accepted the internet evidence as sufficient prior disclosure under Article 7(1) and found the bottle shapes and central label elements overwhelmingly similar for the informed user.
  • The contested design lacked individual character under Article 6(1)(b), so the application was upheld, the design invalidated, and costs awarded against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberMichelle Marie DELLACHERIE

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