DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015001310-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-10-16

000120413

Contested design: 015001310-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 015001310-0001 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Pchela - 97 Ltd.via PDF extraction

Bulgaria (BG)

12, Tsar Ivan Asen II Str., 1000 Sofia, Bulgaria

Represented by

Maria Nikolaeva Vladimirova

Holder · RCD owner

Hristo Shiderov

Bulgaria (BG)

z.k. Mladost 3, bl. 326, entry 4, ap. 17, 1712 Sofia, Bulgaria

Prior art cited (5)

Web disclosureExhibit 1⚠ rejected as evidence

screenshots allegedly showing chocolate products sold by the applicant

Facebook page 'KAKAO' / https://kakao.bg · Facebook / kakao.bg

Web disclosureExhibit 2⚠ rejected as evidence

screenshots allegedly showing chocolate products sold and promoted online

Facebook page 'CHOCOLANA' · Facebook

Web disclosureExhibit 3⚠ rejected as evidence

article advertising 'chocograms' chocolates without showing the product design

https://www.chocogram.com.au · chocogram.com.au · disclosed 2019-06-06

Web disclosureExhibit 4⚠ rejected as evidence

cut-out image allegedly showing a chocolate product

Chocogram profile · Chocogram profile · disclosed 2020-08-01

Web disclosureExhibit 5⚠ rejected as evidence

undated screenshot allegedly showing chocolate packaging products

chocogram.com.au · chocogram.com.au

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, alleging the chocolate packaging had been promoted online before the filing date.
  • Holder said the parties' prior business relationship was irrelevant, accused the applicant of bad faith, and maintained its position in further pleadings.
  • The Division held bad faith was not an available ground here and found the applicant's internet evidence unreliable, untranslated, undated, or disconnected from the alleged disclosures.
  • Because prior disclosure under Article 7(1) CDR was not proven, the Division did not examine novelty or individual character further and rejected the application.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES

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

01.0109.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129539

vs MOHAMAR JAMOU

2026-01-14REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)09, 0110
000120413

vs Hristo Shiderov

2025-02-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)09, 0110
000125416

vs Rif Brand Total SRL

2024-08-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)09, 0110
000129516

vs MOHAMAR JAMOU

2026-01-14Art 25(1)(b)09, 018
000123436

vs MOHAMAR JAMOU

2024-08-13Art 25(1)(b)09, 018
000131325

vs HaoJun Zhu

2026-05-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)097
000131965

vs Jiaxing Xiaotian Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd.

2026-05-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)097
000130985

vs Suzhou Hongmao Import & Export Trade Co.,Ltd

2026-03-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)097