DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008919880-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-07-05

000118757

Contested design: 008919880-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 008919880-0001 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Antibiotice SAvia PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

1, Valea Lupului Street, 707410 Iasi, Romania

Represented by

Ionut Parpauta

Holder · RCD owner

Zdrovit Romania SRLvia PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

Str. Sevastopol, Nr. 1317, Sector 1, Bucharest, Romania

Represented by

Elena Grecu

Prior art cited (1)

Trade mark

Fluxiv figurative packaging graphics for a medical product

Romanian figurative trade mark application No M 2021 01424 · Official Bulletin of Industrial Property (Romania) · disclosed 2021-03-02

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on earlier Fluxiv packaging graphics, relying mainly on Romanian trademark material and related marketing evidence.
  • Holder argued the applicant had not proven public disclosure of the alleged prior design and that the compared package graphics created a different overall impression.
  • The Division accepted disclosure only for the published Romanian figurative trademark and disregarded the later YouTube screenshot while finding other supporting materials insufficiently linked to the design.
  • Comparing the published prior design with the contested package, the Division found notable differences in proportions, graphics, text placement and overall visual character.
  • The contested design retained individual character and novelty, so the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO

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
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