DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 005746500-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-11-23

000119880

Contested design: 005746500-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must bear costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 005746500-0001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Wera Nova s.r.o.via PDF extraction

Czechia (CZ)

Jankovcova 1587/8, 17000 Praha 7 – Holešovice, Czechia

Represented by

Zdeněk Kučera

Holder · RCD owner

J.A.D. Food s.r.o.via PDF extraction

Czechia (CZ)

Uničovská 1324/21, 78401 Litovel, Czechia

Prior art cited (6)

Registered RCD

wafer roll design

Community design No 001516394-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2009-07-16

Trade mark

same wafer roll design as the earlier RCD

European Union trade mark registration No 8 306 672 · European Union Trade Marks Bulletin · disclosed 2009-12-07

Registered RCD

wafer roll design

Community design No 001516394-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2009-07-16

Registered RCD

wafer roll design

Community design No 001516394-0003 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2009-07-16

Registered RCD

wafer roll design

Community design No 001516394-0004 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2009-07-16

Registered RCD

wafer roll design

Community design No 001516394-0005 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2009-07-16

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(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 over its earlier wafer-roll designs and trade mark registrations.
  • The holder argued the request was vague, designer freedom was limited by standard rolled-wafer features, and the contested roll differed through missing filling and end coatings.
  • The Division found disclosure of the key earlier design proven, rejected the claimed freedom constraints, and held the colour and finishing differences too minor to change overall impression.
  • The application was upheld because the contested design lacked individual character under Article 6(1)(b) CDR; other prior designs and the novelty ground were not examined further.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL

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

01.01

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)018
000126695

vs IKOONA SP. Z O.O.

2025-10-28REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)018
000127155

vs McLLOYD'S s.r.o.

2025-08-18REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)018
000127156

vs McLLOYD'S s.r.o.

2025-08-18REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)018
000127157

vs McLLOYD'S s.r.o.

2025-08-18REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)018
000126116

vs IZVOR COMERCIAL INVEST SRL

2025-02-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)018
000120413

vs Hristo Shiderov

2025-02-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)018
000126098

vs EYADA GLOBAL SYSTEM GROUP

2024-10-25REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)018