DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 009076649-0005

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-10-18

000121319

Contested design: 009076649-0005

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 0090766490005 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 (4)

Registered RCD

confectionery box with ribbon and bow

RCD No 0046913760005 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-02-09

Trade mark

figurative mark showing the top of a confectionery box with ribbon and bow

Polish trade mark No R.313830 · TMview / Polish trade mark register · disclosed 2018-04-09

Web disclosure

printouts from the parties' websites showing use of the applicant's box design and confectionery packaging offers

parties' websites

Catalog

applicant's catalogue including the box incorporating the earlier design and trade mark

applicant's catalogue

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant claimed the contested confectionery box lacked novelty and individual character over its earlier RCD, Polish figurative mark, and commercial use evidence.
  • The holder did not submit observations on the invalidity application.
  • The Division found the earlier RCD was properly disclosed and that confectionery box designers retained broad freedom despite basic ballotin-box constraints.
  • Common features like a rectangular red box with a gold ribbon were banal; decoration, bow structure, proportions, and the 'CHERRISSIMO' element changed the overall impression.
  • The application was rejected under Articles 25(1)(b), 6(1)(b), and 5(1)(b), and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

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
000121318

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