DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008037501-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-08-16

000114621

Contested design: 008037501-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay 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 008037501-0001 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

Crono Tard SRLvia PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

Str. Lt. Col. Paul Ionescu, nr.6, sector 1, Bucuresti, Romania

Represented by

Magdalena Gabriela Bolintineanu

Holder · RCD owner

Selex Tradingvia PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

Str. Principala nr. 368, 707115 Sat Costuleni, Com. Costuleni, Romania

Represented by

Viorel Ros

Prior art cited (3)

Web disclosureD1

URINEA bottle shown in a YouTube video screenshot

https://www.youtube.com · YouTube · disclosed 2017-12-04

CatalogD2

URINEA bottle shown in the Metro January 2014 catalogue extract

Metro catalogue via issuu.com, Romania · disclosed 2014-01-02

OtherAnnexes 6-8⚠ rejected as evidence

Contracts and technical drawings for a bottle mould with an ornamented 'U'

Third-party contracts and technical drawings

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(e)Article 25(3)Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 5(2)Article 7(1)Article 7(2)

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty, relying on earlier URINEA bottle disclosures and also invoking earlier-right grounds under Article 25(1)(e) CDR.
  • Holder argued the earlier-right claim was unsubstantiated and the catalogues, video screenshot, and contracts did not objectively prove an identical prior design disclosed before filing.
  • The Division found the Article 25(1)(e) ground inadmissible, accepted only some public disclosures under Article 7 CDR, and rejected the contracts as confidential and not proof of disclosure.
  • Because the contested bottle's embossed 'U' and laurel element was a non-immaterial difference, the prior designs were not identical and the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

09.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000114521

vs CRIS-TIM COMPANIE DE FAMILIE SRL

2021-09-08Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)099
000114926

vs Zou Chunliang

2021-08-05Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)099
000114943

vs Zou Chunliang

2021-08-03Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)099
000010730

vs BEVERAGES Mark Limited

2018-06-08Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)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
000118717

vs "СИ ЕН ДЖИ ТРАК БЪЛГАРИЯ" ООД

2024-05-24Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e)097
000119700

vs Guohua He

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