DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 009076649-0003

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-10-18

000121318

Contested design: 009076649-0003

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 009076649-0003 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

Vobro Spółka z Ograniczoną Odpowiedzialnością Spółka Komandytowavia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Podgórna 78, 87300 Brodnica, Poland

Represented by

Kondrat & Partners

Holder · RCD owner

Mieszko S.A.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Aleje Jerozolimskie 181, 02222 Warsaw, Poland

Prior art cited (3)

Registered RCDD1

packaging box with a ribbon and bow

RCD No 0046913760003 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-02-09

Trade markD2

top of a box with a ribbon and bow

Polish trade mark No R.313087 · TMview / Patent Office of the Republic of Poland · disclosed 2018-04-23

Trade markD3

packaging box with a ribbon, a bow and a folded card

Polish trade mark No R.254878 · TMview / Patent Office of the Republic of Poland · disclosed 2012-04-23

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on earlier RCD D1, Polish trade marks D2 and D3, and evidence of prior commercial use of similar confectionery packaging.
  • The holder was invited to respond but filed no observations, so the case proceeded undefended on the merits.
  • The Division found rectangular confectionery boxes with ribbons and bows are commonplace, giving more weight to specific execution, decoration, wording, ribbon layout and bow shape.
  • It held the contested design created a different overall impression from D1 and D3, was therefore individually characterful and new, and rejected the application.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberIneta GALUBICKE
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ

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
000121319

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121263

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121320

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000118357

vs SOCIETA' GENERALE DELLE ACQUE MINERALI S.P.A.

2023-08-01Art 25(1)(b)097