DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004352300-0013

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-01-13

000117076

Contested design: 004352300-0013

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity 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. 004352300-0013 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

Garrigues IP, S.L.P

Holder · RCD owner

Papier-Mettler KG

Germany (DE)

Hochwaldstrasse 22, 54497 Morbach, Deutschland

Prior art cited (6)

Web disclosureD1

plastic carrier bag

publicidadmerchandising.blogspot.com/2016/04/publicidad-merchandising_21.html · weblog · disclosed 2016-04-21

Web disclosureD2⚠ rejected as evidence

plastic carrier bag

publicidadmerchandising.blogspot.com/2016/04/publicidad-merchandising_21.html · weblog · disclosed 2016-04-21

Web disclosureD3⚠ rejected as evidence

plastic carrier bag

Web disclosureD4⚠ rejected as evidence

plastic carrier bag

Web disclosureD5⚠ rejected as evidence

plastic carrier bag

Web disclosureD6⚠ rejected as evidence

plastic carrier bag

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, arguing the contested bag-handle design had long been disclosed through earlier carrier-bag designs D1 to D6 and related online evidence.
  • The holder argued the contested design remained new and individual, stressing differences in material, handle attachment, colour treatment and seam structure, and disputing any decisive market saturation.
  • The Division held that only D1 was properly evidenced as disclosed; the remaining relied-on designs and declarations were insufficiently identified or documented and were disregarded.
  • Comparing D1 with the contested design, the Division found a different overall impression on the informed user, so D1 destroyed neither individual character nor novelty.
  • The invalidity application was rejected in full and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

09.05

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000127595

vs Shenzhen Beipengxing Technology Co., Ltd

2025-04-15Art 25(1)(b)097
000126496

vs Jiangmen Xinhui Zhenghua Ironware Co., Ltd.

2025-03-07Art 25(1)(b)097
000119700

vs Guohua He

2023-10-29Art 25(1)(b)097
000119221

vs Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo

2023-10-22Art 25(1)(b)097
000121263

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121319

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121318

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121320

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097