Invalidity · first instance · 2022-07-18
000113181
Contested design: 002610592-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay EUR 750 in costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0026105920001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Frito-Lay North America, Inc.via PDF extraction
United States (US)
7701 Legacy Drive, Plano, Texas 750244099 United States
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
FAMvia PDF extraction
Belgium (BE)
Neerveld, 2, 2550 Kontich, Belgium
Represented by
Prior art cited (2)
RCD No 0013017330001 · EUIPO designs database
Snack foods
RCD No 0013017330008 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2012-01-11
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of individual character over earlier RCDs D1 and D2, stressing the same oval crisp form, deep regular ridges and nearly identical crinkle cuts.
- ›The holder argued the contested design created a different overall impression, that crinkle-crisp design freedom was constrained by potato shape and production limits, and that the sector was crowded.
- ›The Division found both cited RCDs had been validly disclosed, defined the sector as crisps, and assessed the designer's freedom as at least average rather than narrowly constrained.
- ›It rejected the alleged market saturation and held the contested design was essentially a more basic version of D2, with differences too minor to alter the overall impression.
- ›The application was upheld in full, the contested design was declared invalid, and the holder was ordered to bear the costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
- MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI - ALOISI
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000129539 vs MOHAMAR JAMOU | 2026-01-14 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 01 | 8 |
| 000126695 vs IKOONA SP. Z O.O. | 2025-10-28 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 01 | 8 |
| 000127155 vs McLLOYD'S s.r.o. | 2025-08-18 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 01 | 8 |
| 000127156 vs McLLOYD'S s.r.o. | 2025-08-18 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 01 | 8 |
| 000127157 vs McLLOYD'S s.r.o. | 2025-08-18 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 01 | 8 |
| 000126116 vs IZVOR COMERCIAL INVEST SRL | 2025-02-17 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 01 | 8 |
| 000120413 vs Hristo Shiderov | 2025-02-07 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 01 | 8 |
| 000126097 vs EYADA GLOBAL SYSTEM GROUP | 2024-10-25 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 01 | 8 |