DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 009076649-0006

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-10-18

000121320

Contested design: 009076649-0006

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay 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 009076649-0006 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, 87-300 Brodnica, Poland

Represented by

Kondrat & Partners

Holder · RCD owner

Mieszko S.A.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Aleje Jerozolimskie 181, 02-222 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 depicting the top of a confectionery box with ribbon and bow

Polish trade mark No R.313830 · Polish Patent Office Bulletin WUP 1/2019

Catalog

applicant's catalogue showing the same confectionery box

Applicant catalogue

Web disclosure

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

parties' websites

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on its earlier RCD, Polish trade mark, and evidence of prior market use of similar confectionery packaging.
  • The holder filed no observations in reply to the invalidity application.
  • The Division found the earlier RCD disclosed, but considered the shared box-and-ribbon features banal and the differences in bow, ribbon, decoration, proportions, and the 'CHERRISSIMO' element sufficient to create a different overall impression.
  • The application was rejected because the contested design had individual character and, for the same reasons, was also new over the prior design.

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
000121319

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