DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008419774-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-03-15

000115702

Contested design: 008419774-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0084197740001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

UAB’Medienos granulės’via PDF extraction

LT

Perkūnkiemio g. 1391, 12114 Vilnius, Lithuania

Represented by

Metida

Holder · RCD owner

UAB ‘POLYWOOD’via PDF extraction

LT

Kęstučio str. 34301, 08112 Vilnius, Lithuania

Prior art cited (2)

Trade mark

figurative mark containing 'HOLZ PELLETS' and tree device for fuel pellets packaging

EUTM No 18 407 447 · TMView

Trade mark

identical earlier Lithuanian figurative mark invoked alongside the EUTM

Lithuanian trade mark No 85 466 (application No 2021 0191) · Lithuanian IP Office trade mark database

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(e)Article 9(2)(a)Article 9(2)(b)

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the contested packaging design reproduced its earlier Lithuanian and EU figurative HOLZ PELLETS marks for identical or highly similar fuel-pellet goods, so invalidity should follow under Article 25(1)(e).
  • Holder referred to prior business relations, certifications, opposition against the Lithuanian mark, and its own investments, but it did not dispute the earlier dates or strong sign similarity and later filed no reply.
  • The Division treated the holder's certification and reputation arguments as irrelevant and accepted that the EUTM had valid priority from 29/01/2021, earlier than the contested design's filing date.
  • It found the earlier mark was almost identically reproduced in the packaging, the relevant goods were highly similar or complementary, and average EU consumers would face a likelihood of confusion.
  • The application succeeded under Article 25(1)(e); the RCD was declared invalid and the holder was ordered to reimburse EUR 750 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberJessica N. LEWIS
  • MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES

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

09.05

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000009948

vs Przedsiębiorstwo Drobiarskie Grzegorz Wyrębski

2026-03-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(e)098
000009949

vs Przedsiębiorstwo Drobiarskie Grzegorz Wyrębski

2026-03-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(e)098
000110862

vs ETI GIDA SANAYI VE TICARET ANONIM SIRKETI

2023-03-01REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(e)098
000117672

vs Yunnan Xiangkeng Trading Co., Ltd.

2022-08-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(e)098
0001116212021-04-20REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(e)098
0001116012021-04-20REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(e)098
000109621

vs FICOSOTA FOOD EAD

2020-10-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(e)098
000109603

vs FICOSOTA FOOD EAD

2020-09-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(e)098