Invalidity · first instance · 2022-12-19
000117858
Contested design: 008445498-0002
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity of Registered Community Design No 008445498-0002 is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 008445498-0002 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Topgeschenken Nederland B.V.via PDF extraction
Netherlands (NL)
Noorderdreef 60, 2153 LL Nieuw-Vennep, Niederlande
Holder · RCD owner
Fleurop AG
Germany (DE)
Lindenstraße 3-4, 12207 Berlin, Deutschland
Represented by
Prior art cited (6)
flower carrier bag in the shape of an inverted truncated pyramid with square base, two black handles and Topbloemen.nl branding
Koen Pack / Topbloemen Nederland documents and later online materials
very similar flower carrier bag shown in greyscale in the internal image file
Annex 6 internal image file
flower carrier bag in a different format with a less narrow taper and longer black handles
Annex 6 internal image file
second flower carrier bag in a different format with a less narrow taper and longer black handles
Annex 6 internal image file
third flower carrier bag in a different format with a less narrow taper and longer black handles
Annex 6 internal image file
flower carrier bag shown in the parties’ September 2021 correspondence
Annex 13 correspondence dated 10/09/2021
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested flower carrier bag lacked novelty and individual character because it was identical to bags allegedly used by Topbloemen long before the holder filed the design.
- ›The holder filed no observations in the invalidity proceedings within the time limit set by the Office.
- ›The Division found the evidence did not reliably prove public disclosure of any earlier design before the filing date and that several alleged prior designs were either internally documented, poorly dated, or insufficiently visible.
- ›It also held that the applicant had not clearly identified and substantiated the specific earlier designs relied on, so the invalidity application had to be rejected.
- ›The application was rejected in full, and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's fixed costs of EUR 400.
Deciding panel
- MemberAlvaro SESM MERINO
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberIvanka IVANOVA
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000122480 vs Lilou Sp. z o.o. | 2025-06-03 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000122480 vs Lilou Sp. z o.o. | 2024-05-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000120678 vs POMELLATO S.p.A. | 2023-11-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000119878 vs Henan Nanhua Qianmu Biological Technology Co., Ltd. | 2023-04-11 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000117656 vs Fleurop AG | 2022-12-20 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000117632 vs Yiwu Hongyu Trading Company | 2022-10-06 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000114705 vs Albert Ungrad | 2022-03-17 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |
| 000114121 vs YES BIŻUTERIA SPÓŁKA AKCYJNA | 2022-02-09 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 11 | 7 |