DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008818637-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-10-04

000118058

Contested design: 008818637-0004

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

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 0088186370004 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

Liviu Chertesvia PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

Sat Feleacu (Com. Feleacu), Cluj-Napoca, Jud. Cluj, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

Holder · RCD owner

Label Print SRLvia PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

B-dul Banu Manta, Nr.21, Bl.35, Sc.B, Et.5, Ap.70, Sector 1, Bucuresti, Romania

Represented by

Elena Grecu

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCD

set of seven post-it type labels

RCD No 0063496270001

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity under Article 25(1)(b) and (d) CDR, relying on its earlier RCD for a set of weekday labels and arguing the contested Thursday tag lacked novelty and individual character.
  • The holder argued Article 25(1)(d) was unavailable because the earlier design had been published before the contested filing date, and that the prior design could not be dissected to isolate features matching the contested tag.
  • The Division accepted the applicant's late reasoning into the record, but found Article 25(1)(d) inapplicable and held the contested tag had visible differences in format, colours, layout, fonts, and overall impression from the earlier RCD.
  • The application was rejected because the evidence did not establish invalidity under Articles 25(1)(b) or 25(1)(d), and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's fixed representation costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES

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

19.08

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000118059

vs LABEL PRINT SRL

2022-10-04Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)199
000118039

vs LABEL PRINT SRL

2022-10-03Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)199
000118060

vs LABEL PRINT SRL

2022-10-03Art 25(1)(d), Art 25(1)(b)199
000129182

vs Guangzhou L-TEK Enterprise Co.,Ltd

2025-09-25Art 25(1)(b)197
000124996

vs Shenzhen Dingzhen Technology Co., Ltd.

2024-07-24Art 25(1)(b)197
000118037

vs LABEL PRINT SRL

2022-10-04Art 25(1)(d)197
000118057

vs LABEL PRINT SRL

2022-10-04Art 25(1)(d)197
000118038

vs LABEL PRINT SRL

2022-10-03Art 25(1)(d)197