DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000016407-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-08-26

000117917

Contested design: 000016407-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application 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 000016407-0001 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

I&Svia PDF extraction

Belgium (BE)

Vijverwegel 60, 9090 Melle, Belgium

Represented by

Fencer

Holder · RCD owner

Europochette, Naamloze vennootschap

Belgium (BE)

Kasteleinstraat 13A, 9150 Kruibeke, Belgium

Represented by

Gevers

Prior art cited (3)

CatalogD1

Kangaroo folded napkin embodiment

García de Pou 2000 catalogue · disclosed 2000-12-31

CatalogD2

Kangaroo folded napkin embodiment

García de Pou 2000 catalogue · disclosed 2000-12-31

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

cutlery pouch shown on the website excerpt

www.enveloppenland.nl/kantoorartikelen/horeca/bestekzakjes · enveloppenland.nl

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested cutlery pouch lacked novelty and individual character over D1 and D2 disclosed in the García de Pou 2000 catalogue and relied on a Belgian court judgment on an identical design.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division accepted the 2000 catalogue as proof of disclosure, rejected the undated website and other undated materials as prior disclosures, and found the designer's freedom at least average.
  • It held that the sealed cardboard-like striped pouch created a different overall impression from the folded napkin prior designs, so the contested design had novelty and individual character and the application was rejected.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ

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
000131525

vs Berentzen-Gruppe Aktiengesellschaft

2026-03-26Art 25(1)(b)097
000131526

vs Berentzen-Gruppe Aktiengesellschaft

2026-03-26Art 25(1)(b)097
000131506

vs Berentzen-Gruppe Aktiengesellschaft

2026-03-26Art 25(1)(b)097
000131524

vs Berentzen-Gruppe Aktiengesellschaft

2026-03-26Art 25(1)(b)097
000131527

vs Berentzen-Gruppe Aktiengesellschaft

2026-03-26Art 25(1)(b)097
000131544

vs Berentzen-Gruppe Aktiengesellschaft

2026-03-26Art 25(1)(b)097
000131528

vs Berentzen-Gruppe Aktiengesellschaft

2026-03-26Art 25(1)(b)097
000131504

vs Berentzen-Gruppe Aktiengesellschaft

2026-03-24Art 25(1)(b)097