DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006792180-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-02-09

000115907

Contested design: 006792180-0003

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity of Registered Community design No 006792180-0003 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. 006792180-0003 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 (7)

PatentD1

cup lid shown in Figs. 35-39

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

PatentD2

cup lid shown in Figs. 45-49

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

PatentD3

lid for a container

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

PatentD4

paperboard cup lid

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

PatentD5

container lid shown in Figs. 8a-8d

DE 10 2014 219 272 A1 · German patent publication · disclosed 2016-03-24

PatentD6

container lid shown in Figs. 12a-12d

DE 10 2014 219 272 A1 · German patent publication · disclosed 2016-03-24

PatentD7

paper-based container lid

WO 2014/031880 A1 · WIPO patent publication · disclosed 2014-02-27

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(a)Article 3(a)Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested drink-lid design was inconsistently represented, relied on technically driven features, and lacked novelty and individual character over D1-D7.
  • The holder replied that the views showed the same product in different states, that the opening and rim involved aesthetic choices, and that the earlier lids differed overall.
  • The Division found the representation clear enough under Article 3(a), accepted the cited disclosures, and concluded that none of the earlier lids was identical or created the same overall impression as the contested design.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

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
000115908

vs SEDA INTERNATIONAL PACKAGING GROUP SPA

2022-02-08Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)099
000114521

vs CRIS-TIM COMPANIE DE FAMILIE SRL

2021-09-08Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)099
000115122

vs DUHAMEL SEBASTIEN

2021-07-12Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)099
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
000123774

vs Gusta Garden GmbH

2024-11-06Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)097
000124459

vs Gusta Garden GmbH

2024-10-04Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)097
000119700

vs Guohua He

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