Invalidity · first instance · 2022-03-09
000115743
Contested design: 003009901-0001
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity against registered Community design No. 003009901-0001 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. 003009901-0001 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
Birner Kunststoff Kästen & Flaschen GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Gerresheimer Str. 2, 92224 Amberg, Deutschland
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Frör Kunststofftechnik GmbH
Germany (DE)
Schornbaumstr. 5, 91052 Erlangen, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (10)
Bottle crate of Delbrouck with photo of a production stamp showing 02/2002.
Views of a bottle crate.
German design No. M9108980-0001 · German Patent and Trade Mark Office
Views of a bottle crate.
German design No. M9108980-0002 · German Patent and Trade Mark Office
Views of a bottle crate.
German design No. M9108980-0003 · German Patent and Trade Mark Office
Views of a bottle crate.
German design No. M9108980-0004 · German Patent and Trade Mark Office
Bottle crate of Oberland with photo of a production stamp showing 07/2014.
Bottle crate of Oberland with photo of a production stamp showing 05/2012.
Bottle crate of Delbrouck with photo of a production stamp showing 02/2014.
Bottle crates.
German design No. M9208058-0001 · German Patent and Trade Mark Office
Images of a bottle crate by Systempark Manufaktur München with production date 5/92.
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant claimed the contested bottle-crate design lacked novelty and individual character over earlier designs D1 to D6, and later tried to add D7.
- ›Holder argued the contested design was new and had individual character, disputed disclosure of D1, D2, D3, D4 and D5, and objected to D7 as a late new ground.
- ›Only D2(1) to D2(4) and D6 were accepted as disclosed; D1, D3, D4 and D5 were not proven to have been made available to the public, and D7 was not considered.
- ›The Division found material differences from each disclosed prior design, so the contested RCD was neither identical to nor produced the same overall impression as the earlier designs.
- ›Invalidity was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's fixed representation costs of EUR 400.
Deciding panel
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000127595 vs Shenzhen Beipengxing Technology Co., Ltd | 2025-04-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000126496 vs Jiangmen Xinhui Zhenghua Ironware Co., Ltd. | 2025-03-07 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000119700 vs Guohua He | 2023-10-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000119221 vs Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo | 2023-10-22 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000121263 vs MIESZKO S.A. | 2023-10-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000121319 vs MIESZKO S.A. | 2023-10-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000121318 vs MIESZKO S.A. | 2023-10-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000121320 vs MIESZKO S.A. | 2023-10-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |