DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008568935-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-07-19

000120866

Contested design: 008568935-0001

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 008568935-0001 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

S.C. NEGRO 2000 SRLvia PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

B-dul Metalurgiei, nr. 136, sector 4, Bucuresti, Romania

Represented by

Claudiu Feraru

Holder · RCD owner

SC Ocean Fish SRLvia PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

DN 2 KM 14, Jud. Ilfov, Com. Afumati Nr. 72, Romania

Represented by

Cabinet Ani Fuciu SRL

Anișoara Fuciu

Prior art cited (4)

Registered RCDD1

packaging design

RCD No 001921487-0056 · DesignView / Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2011-10-06

National designD2

Chinese packaging design

Design No 201630551970.0 · China / trademark.orbit.com · disclosed 2017-05-03

National designD3

Chinese packaging design

Design No 200930084162.8 · China / trademark.orbit.com · disclosed 2010-05-12

National designD4

Chinese packaging design

Application No 201930288187.3 · China / trademark.orbit.com · disclosed 2020-04-03

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 5(2)Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character over four earlier packaging designs, including an earlier RCD and three Chinese design registrations.
  • Holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of D1 to D4 but found the contested design's colours, proportions and ship-and-birds imagery created a different overall impression despite similar wavy-line layout.
  • Because the differences were not immaterial, the design was both novel and of individual character; the invalidity application was rejected and costs awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO

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

09.05

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