Invalidity · first instance · 2022-10-11
000115042
Contested design: 002568410-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld, the contested registered Community design is declared invalid, and the holder is ordered to pay the applicant's costs fixed at EUR 350.
Show verbatim operative text(es)
1. Se estima la solicitud de declaración de nulidad. 2. Se declara nulo el dibujo o modelo comunitario registrado n.º 002568410-0001. 3. Se condena al titular a que sufrague las costas del solicitante, que se fijan en 350 EUR.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €350
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Vossius & Partner Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte mbBvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Siebertstrasse 4, 81675 München, Alemania
Holder · RCD owner
Plásticos Faca, S.A.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Ctra. del Mig, 1-13, 08940 Cornellà de Llobregat (Barcelona), España
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
Filorga cosmetic cream jar design
http://www.annabeautybox.com/2013/01/filorga-sleep-peel-review/ · annabeautybox.com · disclosed 2013-01-15
Filorga cosmetic jar shown in YouTube video capture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C_SEmM55TI · YouTube · disclosed 2011-08-28
Filorga cosmetic cream jar design
http://mywalletisdead.blogspot.com/2012/11/review-filorga-meso-mask.html · mywalletisdead.blogspot.com · disclosed 2012-11-13
Filorga cream jar design shown in archived product webpage
TM-3755/002 / http://www.filorga.com/en/83/MESOMARK/details_produit.php · Internet Archive / filorga.com · disclosed 2011-12-04
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on earlier online disclosures of Filorga cosmetic jars before 30 October 2014.
- ›The holder challenged the internet evidence as unclear and insufficiently authenticated, and argued the contested jar differed in proportions, transparency, closure, and premium appearance.
- ›The Division accepted the applicant's evidence as sufficiently clear, treated later screenshots as complementary, and found the earlier jar design had been disclosed online before the filing date.
- ›Given the creator's broad freedom, the shared square jar form, rounded edges, cylindrical cavity, and opaque lid dominated; the differences had limited impact on overall impression.
- ›The contested design lacked individual character under Article 6(1)(b), so the application was upheld and the RCD invalidated.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esSpanish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000131325 vs HaoJun Zhu | 2026-05-13 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000131965 vs Jiaxing Xiaotian Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. | 2026-05-07 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000130985 vs Suzhou Hongmao Import & Export Trade Co.,Ltd | 2026-03-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000130944 vs Shenzhen Tajinxuan Trading Co.,Ltd. | 2026-02-13 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000130968 vs Shenzhen Zhimei Chuangke E-commerce Co., Ltd. | 2026-02-05 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000129539 vs MOHAMAR JAMOU | 2026-01-14 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000130088 vs Mindful eCom OÜ | 2025-12-15 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |
| 000129228 vs VERONIKI ECOGRUP SRL | 2025-11-04 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 8 |