DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008471882-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-02-15

000115785

Contested design: 008471882-0003

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity of Registered Community design No 0084718820003 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 0084718820003 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

Antibiotice SAvia PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

1, Valea Lupului Street, 707410 Iasi, Romania

Represented by

Ionut Parpauta

Holder · RCD owner

Zdrovit Romania SRLvia PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

Str. Sevastopol, Nr. 1317, Sector 1, Bucharest, Romania

Represented by

Elena Grecu

Prior art cited (2)

Prior useD1⚠ rejected as evidence

Fluxiv packaging design

FLUXIV box x 6 blisters x 10 tablets · Romanian market / invoices / applicant letter · disclosed 2015-11-19

Trade markD2⚠ rejected as evidence

FLUXIV figurative mark shown as packaging image

Romanian figurative trade mark filing No M 2021 01424 · Romanian IP Office filing claimed in the application · disclosed 2021-02-23

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant claimed prior Fluxiv packaging and a Romanian figurative mark anticipated the contested medicine-box design and could mislead consumers because the products had similar therapeutic indications.
  • The holder challenged the sufficiency of the disclosure evidence for the alleged prior designs.
  • The Division admitted only part of the late-filed originals and found that the admitted evidence did not show the prior designs or link the claimed Fluxiv packaging image to proven public disclosure before the filing date.
  • Because disclosure under Article 7 was not proven, the application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
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

09.03

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