Invalidity · first instance · 2023-01-13
000117031
Contested design: 004352300-0004
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity of Registered Community design No 004352300-0004 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. 004352300-0004 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
Plásticos Industriales y Comerciales de Alfarrasi, S.L.via PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Picda, Crta. Nacional 340, s/n, 46893 Alfarrasi, Spanien
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Papier-Mettler KG
Germany (DE)
Hochwaldstrasse 22, 54497 Morbach, Deutschland
Prior art cited (4)
Tweet showing a carry bag
Twitter · disclosed 2016-04-11
Website entry showing a carry bag
Website · disclosed 2012-03-15
Paperplast commercial manager statement asserting pre-14/09/2017 development and marketing of the products named in the application
Paperplast declaration
Undated Monro Ltd. chief commercial officer statement asserting pre-14/09/2017 work on and marketing of the products named in the application
Monro Ltd. declaration
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested carry-bag design lacked novelty and individual character because identical bag designs had long been used before the filing date.
- ›The holder replied that the application did not properly identify and reproduce the earlier designs, that later-added prior designs were inadmissible, and that the contested design met the novelty and individual-character requirements.
- ›The Division held that the alleged earlier designs were not properly identified and that the tweet, website printout, and declarations did not objectively prove disclosure of any concrete earlier design under Article 7(1).
- ›Because no effective prior disclosure was established, the invalidity ground under Article 25(1)(b) failed and the application was rejected with costs against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberIvanka IVANOVA
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000127595 vs Shenzhen Beipengxing Technology Co., Ltd | 2025-04-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000126496 vs Jiangmen Xinhui Zhenghua Ironware Co., Ltd. | 2025-03-07 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000119700 vs Guohua He | 2023-10-29 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000119221 vs Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo | 2023-10-22 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000121263 vs MIESZKO S.A. | 2023-10-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000121319 vs MIESZKO S.A. | 2023-10-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000121318 vs MIESZKO S.A. | 2023-10-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |
| 000121320 vs MIESZKO S.A. | 2023-10-18 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 09 | 7 |