DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008818637-0005

Invalidity · first instance · 2022-10-04

000118059

Contested design: 008818637-0005

CDR

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 0088186370005 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 product labels/tags with days of the week

RCD No 0063496270001

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity under Articles 25(1)(b) and 25(1)(d) CDR, arguing the contested tag lacked novelty and individual character and conflicted with his earlier RCD No 0063496270001.
  • The holder argued Article 25(1)(d) CDR was inapplicable because the earlier RCD had been published before the contested filing date and that the compared label designs differed in layout, colours, text placement and overall appearance.
  • The Invalidity Division held Article 25(1)(d) CDR could not apply because the earlier design was not first made public after the contested filing date, and it assessed each registered design only as actually disclosed.
  • The Division found the contested tag was neither identical to nor produced the same overall impression as the earlier design, so the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

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
000118058

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