Invalidity · first instance · 2022-02-03
000115361
Contested design: 006369153-0001
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld, the contested Community design is declared invalid, and the holder must bear costs fixed at EUR 750.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Dem Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung wird stattgegeben. 2. Das eingetragene Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster Nr. 006369153-0001 wird für nichtig erklärt. 3. Der Inhaber trägt die Kosten, die auf 750 EUR festgesetzt werden.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Fortune Bakery GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Kirchstraße 5, 27404 Heeslingen, Deutschland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Michael Rohrdrommel
Germany (DE)
Danziger Str. 8, 31840 Hessisch Oldendorf, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (6)
amazon.de listing for 'Glückskekse Happy Schoko Glückskeks Vegan, Schoko'
ASIN B079T6MNDB · amazon.de · disclosed 2018-02-12
amazon.de listing for 'Glückskekse Happy Kidz Schoko Glückskeks'
ASIN B07THXVWHJ · amazon.de · disclosed 2019-03-07
Happykeks Facebook post about a party box with 100 chocolate fortune cookies
facebook.com · facebook.com · disclosed 2018-07-04
article on Happy premium chocolate fortune cookies
apotheke.blog/glueckskekse/ · apotheke.blog
article 'Schoko-Glückskekse und LandGang für fünf Leser' with images of cookies
marenlubbe.de/2014/12/19/schoko-glueckskekse · marenlubbe.de · disclosed 2014-12-19
video stills from 'How to make a Chocolate Fortune Cookie'
youtube.com · youtube.com · disclosed 2013-01-23
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that brown chocolate fortune-cookie designs had been disclosed long before filing, especially through Amazon listing D1, so the contested design lacked novelty and at least individual character.
- ›The holder said the cited disclosures created different overall impressions and that D1 to D4 were attributable to him and fell within the Article 7(2) grace period; he also claimed Amazon dating errors.
- ›The Division accepted D1 as a public internet disclosure from 12 February 2018, found the holder failed to rebut that evidence, and held the date fell outside the grace period.
- ›Comparing D1 with the contested design, the Division found no different overall impression for the informed user, so the design lacked individual character and was declared invalid with costs against the holder.
Deciding panel
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
- MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI
- MemberIvanka IVANOVA
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000129539 vs MOHAMAR JAMOU | 2026-01-14 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 01 | 8 |
| 000126695 vs IKOONA SP. Z O.O. | 2025-10-28 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 01 | 8 |
| 000127155 vs McLLOYD'S s.r.o. | 2025-08-18 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 01 | 8 |
| 000127156 vs McLLOYD'S s.r.o. | 2025-08-18 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 01 | 8 |
| 000127157 vs McLLOYD'S s.r.o. | 2025-08-18 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 01 | 8 |
| 000126116 vs IZVOR COMERCIAL INVEST SRL | 2025-02-17 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 01 | 8 |
| 000120413 vs Hristo Shiderov | 2025-02-07 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 01 | 8 |
| 000126097 vs EYADA GLOBAL SYSTEM GROUP | 2024-10-25 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 01 | 8 |