DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000757430-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-03-01

000110862

Contested design: 000757430-0004

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must bear costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 000757430-0004 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

SC Star Foods EM SRLvia PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

Str. Drumul Taberei Baza de Producție SIAU Jud Ilfov, Comuna Popești Leordeni, Romania

Represented by

Bomhard IP, S.L

Holder · RCD owner

Eti Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketivia PDF extraction

Türkiye (TR)

Organize Sanayi Bolgesi 11, Cadde Eskisehir, Türkiye

Represented by

Adrian Căvescu

Prior art cited (1)

Trade mark

figurative trade mark 'KRAX' for snack products

Romanian trade mark No 071 100 · Romanian State Office for Inventions and Trademarks (OSIM) register · disclosed 2005-08-03

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(e)Article 36(2)(b)Article 10(2)(b)

Argument summary

  • Applicant relied on earlier Romanian figurative mark KRAX and argued the contested snack-packaging design used the similar sign CRAX for identical or highly similar goods, creating confusion and unfair advantage.
  • Holder sought suspension and argued the overall package differed, the goods were not similar, KRAX had weak distinctiveness, the evidence and translations were insufficient, and Article 25(1)(e) CDR did not apply.
  • The Division found the applicant owned a valid earlier Romanian trade mark, the contested packaging was for snacks, the signs were visually averagely similar and aurally identical, and the goods/products were similar.
  • It concluded that use of CRAX in the contested design created a likelihood of confusion under Romanian trade mark law, so the application was upheld and the design declared invalid.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

09.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000009948

vs Przedsiębiorstwo Drobiarskie Grzegorz Wyrębski

2026-03-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(e)098
000009949

vs Przedsiębiorstwo Drobiarskie Grzegorz Wyrębski

2026-03-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(e)098
000117672

vs Yunnan Xiangkeng Trading Co., Ltd.

2022-08-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(e)098
000115702

vs UAB "POLYWOOD"

2022-03-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(e)098
0001116212021-04-20REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(e)098
0001116012021-04-20REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(e)098
000109621

vs FICOSOTA FOOD EAD

2020-10-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(e)098
000109603

vs FICOSOTA FOOD EAD

2020-09-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(e)098