DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006645693-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-10-03

000119260

Contested design: 006645693-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld; Registered Community design No 006645693-0001 is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Se estima la solicitud de declaración de nulidad. 2. Se declara nulo el dibujo o modelo comunitario registrado n.º 006645693-0001. 3. Se condena al titular a que sufrague las costas del solicitante, que se fijan en 750 EUR.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Laboratoires Filorga Cosmetiques société par actions simplifiée à associé uniquevia PDF extraction

France (FR)

2-4 rue de Lisbonne, 75008 Paris, Francia

Represented by

Elzaburu, S.L.P.

Holder · RCD owner

FACA France Recipients Pour Cosmetique S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Ctra.del Mig, 1-13, 08940 Cornellà de Llobregat, España

Prior art cited (2)

Publication

ISO-AGE cosmetic cream jar shown in brochure extracts and press coverage

France Soir · France Soir · disclosed 2010-01-26

Publication

cosmetic cream jar shown in a French magazine extract

Santé magazine · Santé magazine

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested cosmetic jar lacked novelty and individual character over earlier jar disclosures and that the designer had broad freedom.
  • The holder challenged admissibility and disclosure, attacked the quality, source, date, and EU accessibility of the evidence, and denied any matching overall impression.
  • The Division found the earlier jar design sufficiently disclosed through the brochure extracts and the Santé magazine extract and rejected the holder's disclosure objections.
  • It held that the shared rounded square jar, lid, and inner cavity dominated the comparison, so differences in transparency, colour, and verbal elements did not create a different overall impression.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO

Decision files

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

Locarno classes

09.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131325

vs HaoJun Zhu

2026-05-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000131965

vs Jiaxing Xiaotian Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-05-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130985

vs Suzhou Hongmao Import & Export Trade Co.,Ltd

2026-03-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130944

vs Shenzhen Tajinxuan Trading Co.,Ltd.

2026-02-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130968

vs Shenzhen Zhimei Chuangke E-commerce Co., Ltd.

2026-02-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000129539

vs MOHAMAR JAMOU

2026-01-14REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000130088

vs Mindful eCom OÜ

2025-12-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098
000129281

vs VERONIKI ECOGRUP SRL

2025-11-04REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)098