DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006792180-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-02-08

000115887

Contested design: 006792180-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 006792180-0001 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Huhtamäki Oyjvia PDF extraction

Finland (FI)

Revontulenkuja 1, 02100 Espoo, Finland

Holder · RCD owner

Seda International Packaging Group SpAvia PDF extraction

Italy (IT)

Corso Salvatore D'Amato 73, 80022 Arzano Napoli, Italien

Prior art cited (4)

PatentD1

figures 35 to 39 showing container 16 with lid 140

EP 2 674 370 A1 · European patent application publication · disclosed 2013-12-18

PatentD2

figures 45 to 49 showing container 176 with lid 170

EP 2 674 370 A1 · European patent application publication · disclosed 2013-12-18

PatentD3

lid for a container shown in figures 1 and 2

CN 105857894 B · Chinese patent publication · disclosed 2017-12-05

PatentD4

paperboard cup lid shown in figure 1

WO 2016/069755 A1 · international patent application publication · disclosed 2016-05-06

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, arguing the claimed groove was purely functional and relying on D1 to D4 patent disclosures.
  • The holder disputed the technical-function objection and argued the contested lid remained new and had individual character over the cited prior disclosures.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of D1 to D4, but found D1 and D2 were not identical to the contested design and therefore did not destroy novelty.
  • The Division also found D3 and D4 created different overall impressions, so the contested design retained individual character and the invalidity application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

09.07

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000127595

vs Shenzhen Beipengxing Technology Co., Ltd

2025-04-15Art 25(1)(b)097
000126496

vs Jiangmen Xinhui Zhenghua Ironware Co., Ltd.

2025-03-07Art 25(1)(b)097
000119700

vs Guohua He

2023-10-29Art 25(1)(b)097
000119221

vs Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo

2023-10-22Art 25(1)(b)097
000121263

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121319

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121318

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121320

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097