DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 015003786-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-11-23

000121874

Contested design: 015003786-0001

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 0150037860001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Societe Bic, société anonymevia PDF extraction

France (FR)

12-22, Boulevard Victor Hugo, 92110 Clichy, France

Represented by

In Concreto

Holder · RCD owner

Benxi Fenghe Lighter Co., Ltd

China (CN)

Huanxiling, Wolong Town, Mingshan Dist., Benxi, Liaoning, China

Represented by

IntellectPol IP Law Firm

Sławomir Krzysztof Nowicki

Prior art cited (4)

PublicationAnnex 3

Promotional brochure showing the BIC J25 Mini Lighter in green.

Promotional brochure · disclosed 2011-12-01

CatalogAnnex 10

2013 catalogue showing the same lighter in green and red.

Applicant catalogue · disclosed 2013-12-31

Web disclosureAnnex 13

Snapshots showing the same lighter in red.

YouTube video "Tutorial: Magic trick with a lighter - Make the logo disappear - Magic explained" · YouTube · disclosed 2012-02-17

Prior useAnnex 2⚠ rejected as evidence

Affidavit and 2023 purchase of a green lighter used for comparison.

Affidavit of Mathieu Vandermolen · disclosed 2023-03-21

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the contested lighter lacked novelty and individual character over its long-marketed BIC lighter disclosed through brochures, a catalogue, and online material.
  • Holder filed no observations and left the invalidity application undefended.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of the red BIC lighter before 22/11/2022, but rejected the 2023 purchase evidence as proof of prior disclosure.
  • Given the strong similarity in shape, proportions, and visible components, colour and branding differences did not change the overall impression, so individual character was absent.
  • The application was upheld, the contested design was declared invalid, and costs were awarded against the holder.

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

27.05

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000130847

vs Ying CAO

2026-02-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)278
000125137

vs Shenzhen Olit Trading Co., Ltd.

2025-12-02REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)278
000127919

vs Benxi Fenghe Lighter Co., Ltd

2025-05-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)278
000124395

vs Xin Lu

2025-02-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)278
000126756

vs SHENZHEN KAIWEILI DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CO.,LTD

2024-12-18REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)278
000126655

vs Feoba Tech Limited

2024-12-09REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)278
000126656

vs Feoba Tech Limited

2024-12-09REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)278
000126597

vs Feoba Tech Limited

2024-12-04REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)278