Invalidity · first instance · 2022-12-20
000117656
Contested design: 008445498-0001
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity against Registered Community design No 008445498-0001 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. 008445498-0001 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 carrying bag in the form of an inverted truncated pyramid with square base and two black handles, printed with Topbloemen.nl branding and plant imagery
very similar flower carrying bag shown in grayscale in an internal image file
flower carrying bag in a different format, with a less narrow taper and longer black handles
flower carrying bag in a different format, with a less narrow taper and longer black handles
flower carrying bag in a different format, with a less narrow taper and longer black handles
flower carrying bag shown in Annex 13
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested flower container design lacked novelty and individual character because it was identical to earlier flower carrying bags it had already used.
- ›The holder filed no observations within the time limit set by the Office, despite being represented in the header of the decision.
- ›The Division found that the submitted materials did not prove effective prior disclosure of any specific earlier design before the filing date of the contested RCD.
- ›It also held that the applicant had not properly identified and substantiated the earlier designs on which the invalidity claim was based.
- ›The invalidity application was therefore rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's fixed representation costs.
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 |
| 000117858 vs Fleurop AG | 2022-12-19 | — | 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 |